At the recent meeting of the Colorado Bar Association (CBA) Executive Council, the Council considered a request from the Colorado Women’s Bar Association to join in opposing Amendment 48 which would amend the Colorado Constitution to define “person” to include “any human being from the moment of fertilization as a person.”   While other groups are objecting to Amendment 48 for a variety of reasons, the CBA Executive Council focused solely on the impact of such an amendment on the laws and jurisprudence of Colorado.

After much discussion and consideration, the Executive Council voted to oppose Amendment 48 on the grounds that it will significantly impact the laws of Colorado and present a number of unintended consequences.   The word “person” appears more than 20,000 times in the Colorado Revised Statutes as well in Colorado regulations and municipal ordinances.    Specifically, to redefine the term “person” as Amendment 48 proposes,  would effectively amend all of the statutes in Colorado which contain that term.   Furthermore, the jurisprudence which has developed in defining the term would have to be revisited as a result of the proposed amendment.    Almost every area of law would be impacted including criminal law, family law, trusts and estates, elder law, tort law, juvenile law, health law and business law.    The Executive Council also remains concerned that using the Constitution to implement such proposals undermines the purpose of that fundamental document.  In keeping with the tenets of the CBA’s stated purposes to “advance the science of jurisprudence, to secure the more efficient  administration of justice….[and]encourage the adoption of proper legislation” the Executive Council believed it important to oppose the amendment based upon the third argument which appears in the 2008 Election Blue Book.   That argument states:

Amendment 48 is more complex than adding a definition to the state constitution.   Creating a definition of the word “person” in the constitution could impact many existing laws containing the term.   The courts and the legislature will have to determine how to apply the new definition to a wide variety of laws, including property rights and criminal laws.

The CBA did not and does not take any position as to the other arguments against Amendment 48 including medical issues, privacy issues or individual rights to make decisions.

The Executive Council did not approve any expenditure in opposition to Amendment 48.