Who will this affect?

All Coloradans.

What would happen?

It would extend constitutional protections to fertilized eggs.

Where?

The State of Colorado

When?

Election Day, Nov. 2, 2010

Why?

It's part of a national agenda to ban all abortions.

Q. What would this initiative do?

A. Amendment 62 would ban abortion, even in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. It would ban emergency contraception and birth control pills. It would also impact literally thousands of Colorado laws in ways that would jeopardize women’s health. It would lay the legal foundation for intrusion by politicians, lawyers and the courts in our most important life decisions. It would make one religious viewpoint the law of the land when it comes to reproductive health care. The amendment defines the term “person” to grant constitutional rights to fertilized eggs, which is being referred to this year as from the moment of "biological development."

Q. Didn't Coloradans already vote on this issue?

A. Yes. Colorado voters rejected a very similar measure, Amendment 48, two years ago. Amendment 48 was defeated with 73 percent of the vote -- a more than 3-1 margin.

Q. How is Amendment 62 different than Amendment 48?

A. In 2008, the proponents sought to define "personhood" as being from the "moment of fertilization." This year, the proponents have amended that language, to define "personhood" as being "from the moment of biological development" rather than from the “moment of fertilization.” Despite the sneaky effort to slightly alter the language, the result is the same. Like Amendment 48, Amendment 62 would extend inalienable rights, equal access to justice and due process of law to fertilized eggs. Like Amendment 48, Amendment 62 simply goes too far.

Q. What is the definition of, "from the moment of biological development"?

A. The measure does not define the phrase, "beginning of biological development." The phrase has no established legal meaning, and is not considered a commonly accepted medical or scientific term.

Q. What does this initiative say?

A. The official ballot wording reads as follows:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term “person,” as used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law, to include any human being from the beginning of biological development of that human being?

The full text of the initiative adds a new section to the Bill of Rights in Article II of the Colorado Constitution:

“Section 31: Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include any human being from the moment of "biological development.”

Q. How could Amendment 62 jeopardize a woman’s health?

A. Amendment 62 has far-reaching consequences that jeopardize a woman's health and the care she receives from her physician. By establishing legal rights from the “moment of biological development,” Amendment 62 affects important life decisions that should be made by a woman, her family and her doctor. It would eliminate a woman's right to make personal private decisions about her own health care.

This amendment would lay a legal foundation to outlaw all abortions in Colorado, even for rape or incest victims, or when the life of the woman is at risk.

If passed, the result would be a constitutional provision that could be used to ban commonly used birth control, including the Pill and emergency contraception, because these methods can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. All these forms of birth control could be banned, even for women with health conditions that make pregnancy a life-threatening risk.

Giving legal status to fertilized eggs would also block stem cell research being used to fight chronic diseases and disabilities. In-vitro fertilization could be affected since fertilized eggs used in these processes would have full legal rights.

Colorado would have a constitutional amendment that could be used to deny access to life-saving medical treatment for a disease or condition – like cancer -- if the treatment might harm a fertilized egg.

Q. How does this amendment allow intrusion by the courts into our personal lives?

A. The wording of this amendment is unclear and open to interpretation by politicians, lawyers and courts. By giving legal rights to fertilized eggs, this amendment could trigger investigations anytime a woman has a miscarriage. This is a clear and extreme violation of privacy at an already difficult time.

Q. Can the governor or Colorado’s legislature repeal this if it passes?

Q. Who is behind Amendment 62?

A. Amendment 62 is being sponsored by a national group called Personhood USA. In addition to Colorado, activists are trying to pass similar laws to outlaw all abortion in at least six other states.

Q. Who opposes this initiative?

A. NO on 62 is a broad-based, bi-partisan coalition of nurses, doctors, religious and faith leaders, community groups, attorneys, and health advocacy organizations.

Q. Does this initiative clarify language in the constitution?

A. No. This amendment sounds simple, but has far-reaching implications and goes too far. Changing the legal definition of “person” in the constitution impacts thousands of laws and will affect health care, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and common methods of birth control, including emergency contraception, the Pill and the IUD. (These methods can work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.)

Q. What are the sections of the constitution that are affected?

A. The three sections of the constitution that would be affected by this new definition of the word "person" read as follows (the word "person" has been italicized for emphasis):

Article II, Section 3. Inalienable Rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Article II, Section 6. Equality of Justice. Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Article II, Section 25. Due Process of Law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

Q. Does the measure have anything to do with slavery, as has been suggested by some who are pushing Amendment 62?

A. Amendment 62 has nothing at all to do with slavery.

This amendment is an effort to ban all abortion by extending constitutional protections to fertilized eggs. It would strip a woman's right to make personal decisions about her own reproductive health, even when she's been raped, is the victim of incest or when her life is endangered. It would also outlaw commonly used forms of birth control, including the Pill and emergency contraception. I could prohibit women from seeking medical care and treatment, including if they've suffered a miscarriage, if that treatment might endanger a fertilized egg. The sneaky language of the amendment would invite lawyers, politicians and the courts to interfere with decisions that should be made between a woman, her family, her doctor and her God.

The amendment had nothing to do with the issue of slavery when Colorado voters resoundingly rejected it two years ago, and it has nothing to do with slavery now. Any claim otherwise is spurious, at best.