|
|
Amendments 48 and 62 were dangerous and deceptive measures that if passed, would have changed the state constitution and inserted the government into the personal, private health care decisions that women and their families make every single day. Coloradans overwhelmingly rejected both measures in every county. Personhood Colorado, the group responsible for these measures, continues to ignore the will of the Colorado voters as they work to bring this extreme measure back to the Colorado ballot for a third time in 2012.
|
|
Religion Shouldn't Be Basis for Law |
 |
 |
|
Religion Shouldn't Be Basis for Law - The Greeley Tribune (10/27/10) - Amendment 62 is an unabashed attempt to put a religious definition of life in our state constitution and to make one religious viewpoint the law of the land. Creating laws that are grounded in religious belief conflicts with the separation of church and state and compromises our religious liberty. There are diverse theological viewpoints on when life begins. We can continue to spend countless hours and dollars on this ideological battle, but that ignores the greater moral imperative here. |
|
|
Voters, Reject Citizen-Initiated Amendments |
|
|
|
Voters, Reject Citizen-Initiated Amendments - The Coloradoan (10/27/10) - Amendment 62, the so-called "Personhood Amendment," is similar to another measure soundly rejected by Colorado voters in 2008. The amendment seeks to define a fertilized egg as a "person," granting a full range of rights under state law. As we said in 2008 when we recommended a vote against that year's proposal, regardless of how one feels about the issue of abortion, this proposal would carry broad and perhaps unintended consequences if approved by voters. Vote "no" on Amendment 62. |
|
Editorial: 86ing 62 - Craig Daily Press |
|
|
|
Editorial: 86ing 62 - Craig Daily Press (10/27/10) - Amendment 62 goes too far, and attempts to take away personal choice. It takes away personal responsibility and seeks to put that power in the hands of legislators. Who wants politicians legislating morality? Where does it stop? If we give them this power now, what’s to say they can’t come back in the future, again and again, chipping away so that one day we’re all nothing but drones living completely under the government’s thumb? There’s no point in opening the door to that possibility. |
|
Amendment 62: Insulting, Hurtful and Demeaning |
|
|
Amendment 62: Insulting, Hurtful and Demeaning - The Huffington Post (10/19/10) - As a woman, as a mother of two toddlers, and as an ordained minister, I find Amendment 62 offensive. I find it insulting, hurtful and demeaning...The truth about Amendment 62 is that it eliminates a woman's right to make private decisions about her body, her health, and her future. Amendment 62 assumes that women are not smart enough -- it assumes that we are not competent enough, or strong enough, or compassionate enough, or trustworthy enough - to make personal decisions concerning our bodies or our reproductive health. |
|
Denver Council opposes "Personhood Amendment" |
|
|
|
Denver Council opposes "Personhood Amendment" - The Denver Post (10/19/10) - The Denver City Council on Monday approved a proclamation announcing its opposition to Amendment 62, the so-called Personhood Amendment, which would define a person and grant constitutional rights "from the beginning of biological development." The proclamation, sponsored by Councilwoman Carol Boigon, passed with the support of 11 council members. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
Action Center
Stay tuned for ways you can help!
Donate
One of the best ways that you can support the campaign is to make a secure donation to the campaign. Can you support the campaign with a donation of $10, $25, $50 or more today?
To Donate online, please click here.
|
