Planned Parenthood Attempts to Strangle Personhood Ballot in Missouri

Michie · #1 4th November 2009, 09:22 PM

*Permission to post full text*

ST. LOUIS, MO, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) --

Planned Parenthood is suing the state of Missouri in an attempt to keep Missouri's citizens from voting on a pro-life ballot initiative that would define "person," as used in certain sections of the Missouri state constitution, to include every human being "from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

"Planned Parenthood is again trying to stifle the will of the people by forcing their twisted political and business agenda through court action," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, in a statement issued Monday. "They know the people are against them."

Planned Parenthood is arguing against the measure on several grounds, including saying that the proposed summary text to be submitted to voters in the ballot "fails to advise voters of the far-reaching legal changes and consequences that would result" from the amendment and "thus is likely to deceive and mislead voters."

Judie Brown responded, however, that the "only legal implication of any personhood proposal, including Missouri's, is equal justice and human rights for all human beings - if Planned Parenthood wants to oppose that, then their true motivation has been exposed and they should have the courage to say so."

Keith Mason of Personhood USA similarly stated that "the legal and constitutional 'fallout' of a Missouri Personhood amendment, is that all humans in the state of Missouri have human rights. ... All humans are people, and must be protected."

Advocates of the measure also say that Planned Parenthood's accusations regarding the alleged lack of clarity of the ballot text are unfounded.
"Our amendment is easy to understand, and simply protects all humans from their biological beginning," stated Dr. Gregory Thompson, chair of Personhood Missouri.

Indeed, an alternate summary text proposed by Planned Parenthood appears less clear in many respects than the text submitted by Personhood Missouri. Their summary devotes over two-thirds of its words to cautioning voters of the supposedly dangerous effects of passing the amendment, warning ominously that it would alter "many laws ... in potentially unforeseen ways," and calls unborn human beings simply "fertilized eggs."

Planned Parenthood does not merely wish to alter the text submitted to voters, however, but to quash the initiative entirely. They argue that because of the many potential effects of the amendment, it violates a requirement that petitions amending the Constitution do not contain more than one subject. However, precedent in this case is not on the side of Planned Parenthood: a similar measure in the state of Colorado was found to be a single-subject measure.

Personhood Missouri's Dr. Thompson pointed out that the Planned Parenthood lawsuit will cost taxpayers additional funds and use valuable government resources: "The very organization that uses tax dollars to cause the deaths of millions of innocent human beings and many mothers, along with years of physical, mental, and spiritual pain, is now using government resources again to keep this issue from going to the voters."
"The motivation of Planned Parenthood is highly suspect," Personhood USA's Keith Mason said. "This is clearly an act of desperation by a billion dollar industry, seeking to keep the issue of Personhood away from the people of Missouri."

Planned Parenthood also recently brought a lawsuit against another pro-life ballot initiative in Missouri. The initiative would "protect taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortion, somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), and research that destroys human embryos," according to Frederic G. Sauer of the Missouri Roundtable for Life.

Using arguments resembling those employed in the other lawsuit, Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said that the bill's language was ambiguous because it did not define "abortion services," according to the Missouri Lawyers Media.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110403.html

WarriorAngel · #2 5th November 2009, 12:07 AM

I'd love to see PPF GO down in flames.... and be gone.
I would love to see ppl of all ages and growth stages be given full rights under the Constitution.

Fantine · #3 5th November 2009, 03:23 AM

I think that it is irresponsible for any group to put a proposition on the ballot that hasn't been reviewed by several constitutional lawyers to insure its constitutionality.

In my state, at least, the state legislature has to approve the placement of propositions on the ballot, and one reason a proposal can get scrapped is constitutionality.

Does this group (which is led by two Christian ministers, with no indication that there is a board of directors with the kinds of expertise they need--including legal--to mount such campaigns.)

If the wording is constitutional, I have no objection to such proposals being on the ballot. Better in 2010 than in 2012, a Presidential election year...but best in 2011...

Ave Maria · #4 5th November 2009, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

I'd love to see PPF GO down in flames.... and be gone.
I would love to see ppl of all ages and growth stages be given full rights under the Constitution.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Fantine

I think that it is irresponsible for any group to put a proposition on the ballot that hasn't been reviewed by several constitutional lawyers to insure its constitutionality.

In my state, at least, the state legislature has to approve the placement of propositions on the ballot, and one reason a proposal can get scrapped is constitutionality.

Does this group (which is led by two Christian ministers, with no indication that there is a board of directors with the kinds of expertise they need--including legal--to mount such campaigns.)

If the wording is constitutional, I have no objection to such proposals being on the ballot. Better in 2010 than in 2012, a Presidential election year...but best in 2011...

I also agree here. However, I think it is more irresponsible for young women to have sex before marriage and get pregnant. I also think it is irresponsible for women who are married to get pregnant when they can't afford to take care of a child.

That said, I personally think that abortion is sometimes the best option but that is rare.

WarriorAngel · #5 5th November 2009, 09:37 AM

Sorry Paladin - but aborting is never a good option.
The only conceivable time it may be considered an absolute medical necessity would be eptopic. And that is not only rare - but also there is only one other option open - that is for both to die - if surgery isnt performed.

[*My thoughts] Science could - i venture to guess - have that already fixed and could have found a way to move the baby to a proper area - if the governments had found it necessary to save lives.
As it is, they wont - or havent.

Anyway - taking a life ruins the emotional well being of a woman. Takes the life of a future priest, Bishop, doctor, scientist, or peacemaker.
Its NOT a choice.

And it is irresponsible to preach against the Church - and i am not saying you have - but when we open ourselves up to giving advice that disobeys the Church - we become accountable for every conceivable action someone took on our behest.

Scandal isnt good.
So be cautious when delivering your communications to anyone.

Fantine · #6 5th November 2009, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

Sorry Paladin - but aborting is never a good option.

The basis of the lawsuit has nothing to do with abortion (even if the motivation for the lawsuit probably does.)

It has to do with constitutionality. If the wording makes the proposal unconstitutional, then spending time or money or effort campaigning for it is an exercise in futility.

And so it would behoove the state of Missouri and all interested parties to have the wording checked out by a team of constitutional lawyers, and, when it is in a format that would pass muster, to submit the proposition.

This process would derail the lawsuit (although the wording of the proposition might change.)

WarriorAngel · #7 5th November 2009, 09:56 AM

Explain how a baby inside the mother is not an individual person.
I am interested.

But before you start giving an opinion - let us review the facts.

The baby has its own set of
eyes
fingerprints
dna
blood type
AS well as its own:
body
heart
stomach
feet
hands
etc

So if that baby was its mother - it would be one thing - but that baby has it's own individual CREATED existence outside of the mother for all future intents and purposes.. It has a life, even if it is incapable of exercising its motor skills or breathing on its own, it is still a different person aside from the mother.

Those are the facts Fantine.

And knowing those facts - it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to suggest they have no right to life.

Ok, now what part of that childs life has to be rendered by the mother's option If they live or not, and what determines they are UNWORTHY OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

Dark_Lite · #8 5th November 2009, 10:09 AM

MODERATOR HELMET ACTIVATE

This is just a reminder for everyone to keep the rules and teachings of the Church in mind... Carry on.

Fantine · #9 5th November 2009, 10:14 AM

And unless you follow the correct procedures and use the correct language nothing is accomplished.

It's not fair to run around saying, "Government is bad! Government is evil!" when you're not following the correct procedures to change things legally.

And maybe these Christian ministers are using the correct language. And maybe they're not. And until it's determined whether they are or not, it's not worth discussing.

WarriorAngel · #10 5th November 2009, 10:23 AM

On the contrary Fantine, the modern government has changed the laws of this country to suit pro abortion.

The forefathers never ever intended babies to be butchered at the whim of the mother.

The wording means nothing. The babies ALREADY have their own - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Even if feminists and abortionists would like to say they are meaningless blobs that are disposable at a woman's descretion because THEY THINK she ought to have that power.

No human on earth has that power.

AND this country did not have legal abortions from the start.
So why does it now?