Fertilization-Assigned Personhood
It's a bit unusual, to be certain. But it's hardly the most outrageous of tales, despite Steve Benen's narrative:
And, apparently, after the vote, the pages returned for debate on firearms.
Silly, indeed, but where abortion access advocates warn of a slippery slope on the Florida personhood front, there are more aggressive laws that might well come to pass in the near future.
South Carolina H.3233 is pretty straightforward (block capitals is sic):
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PERSONHOOD ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA", WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING VESTS AT FERTILIZATION, AND THAT THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 3, ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, VEST AT FERTILIZATION FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN PERSON.
So, now let us talk about equal protection.
Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP] is a legislative attempt to invoke a "new class of person" in the United States, assigning inalienable Constitutional rights to a fertilized ovum.
Ostensibly, these laws are intended to end abortion rights in the United States. Additionally, these laws will prohibit the use of the most popular forms of birth control for women, which prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation of the a newly-fertilized zygote. Furthermore, they will not only lend credence, but also legal imperative, to efforts undertaken in many states to use fetal protection laws ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women from violence as a means to prosecute women who have simple accidents while pregnant, or suffer mental illness during pregnancy.
But FAP also creates a specific conflict under the Equal Protection Clause: What happens when one person must assert equal protection that grants authority over another equally protected person's body?
Formally, it is hard to pin down FAPpers on their answer. Thematically, it seems they have chosen the easy way out, relying on the need to denigrate a woman's human status but refusing to acknowledge that condition. Indeed, the question pertains to virtually any assertion of personhood in utero [PIU]: How does one manage the conflict of two equally protected people when one must assert authority over another's very person?
In the forty-one years since Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion argument, which rests entirely on some assertion of PIU, has been unable to answer this question; indeed, historically they prefer to avoid it altogether. Despite their deepest hopes, the question persists.
In assigning personhood to any preborn human organism, one invokes the equal protection conflict that arises when one "person" exists inside another.
And in the United States, at least, there really isn't any legitimate way around the question; the supreme law of the land is the supreme law of the land. To the other, one might suggest that such problematic outcomes could only result if we are so irrational as to respect the supreme law of the land.
Very well, then: The rights to life and equal protection vest in a person at the moment of fertilization. What happens next?
And remember: Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Which means that ignoring the U.S. Constitution is not an option, no matter how rational one might think it is to do so.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Florida shields pages from abortion debate". MSNBC. April 15, 2014. MSNBC.com. May 10, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/florida-shields-pages-abortion-debate
Weinstein, Adam. "Legislators Ban Young Impressionable Interns During Abortion Debate". Gawker. April 10, 2014. Gawker.com. May 10, 2014. http://gawker.com/florida-house-bans-young-impressionable-interns-during-1561719906
South Carolina General Assembly. "H.3323 Personhood Act of South Carolina". 120th Session, 2013-14. SCStateHouse.gov. May 10, 2014. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/3323.htm
Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Law.Cornell.edu. May 10, 2014. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution
Content Warning: The Florida House of Representatives has determined that discussion of such issues as this thread concerns are unsuitable for minors. Yes, really. Then again, one or another of the California legislative chambers—what, thirty-five, forty years ago?—determined that a large number of popular rock and roll songs had backward Satanic messages hidden in them. Like the one about the dangers of cocaine. Good heavens, you can't let the children hear that. At any rate, it seemed worth mentioning.
It's a bit unusual, to be certain. But it's hardly the most outrageous of tales, despite Steve Benen's narrative:
As for the other bill, proponents cited a recent incident in which a Tampa Bay woman was tricked by an ex-boyfriend into taking pills that caused her to miscarry in order to justify new legislation. Democratic state Rep. Elaine Schwartz asked, “How are you going to know that the miscarriage was caused by some event, even months ago? This is much too broad. It’s unenforceable and it’s part of a war on women.”
Nevertheless, this argument did not carry the day and the issue now goes to the state Senate.
But what struck me as especially interesting was, of all things, what lawmakers did with the legislative pages during the debate.
Like most legislative bodies in the U.S., Florida has a page program – young students who want to learn more about government and lawmaking help members by delivering messages and running errands.
But when it came time to debate new reproductive-rights restrictions, the pages were shielded – they were kept outside because the content of the debate was deemed unacceptable for minors.
Nevertheless, this argument did not carry the day and the issue now goes to the state Senate.
But what struck me as especially interesting was, of all things, what lawmakers did with the legislative pages during the debate.
Like most legislative bodies in the U.S., Florida has a page program – young students who want to learn more about government and lawmaking help members by delivering messages and running errands.
But when it came time to debate new reproductive-rights restrictions, the pages were shielded – they were kept outside because the content of the debate was deemed unacceptable for minors.
And, apparently, after the vote, the pages returned for debate on firearms.
Silly, indeed, but where abortion access advocates warn of a slippery slope on the Florida personhood front, there are more aggressive laws that might well come to pass in the near future.
South Carolina H.3233 is pretty straightforward (block capitals is sic):
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 1, TITLE 1 SO AS TO ENACT THE "PERSONHOOD ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA", WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN BEING VESTS AT FERTILIZATION, AND THAT THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, GUARANTEED BY SECTION 3, ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, VEST AT FERTILIZATION FOR EACH BORN AND PREBORN HUMAN PERSON.
So, now let us talk about equal protection.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP] is a legislative attempt to invoke a "new class of person" in the United States, assigning inalienable Constitutional rights to a fertilized ovum.
Ostensibly, these laws are intended to end abortion rights in the United States. Additionally, these laws will prohibit the use of the most popular forms of birth control for women, which prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation of the a newly-fertilized zygote. Furthermore, they will not only lend credence, but also legal imperative, to efforts undertaken in many states to use fetal protection laws ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women from violence as a means to prosecute women who have simple accidents while pregnant, or suffer mental illness during pregnancy.
But FAP also creates a specific conflict under the Equal Protection Clause: What happens when one person must assert equal protection that grants authority over another equally protected person's body?
Formally, it is hard to pin down FAPpers on their answer. Thematically, it seems they have chosen the easy way out, relying on the need to denigrate a woman's human status but refusing to acknowledge that condition. Indeed, the question pertains to virtually any assertion of personhood in utero [PIU]: How does one manage the conflict of two equally protected people when one must assert authority over another's very person?
In the forty-one years since Roe v. Wade, the anti-abortion argument, which rests entirely on some assertion of PIU, has been unable to answer this question; indeed, historically they prefer to avoid it altogether. Despite their deepest hopes, the question persists.
In assigning personhood to any preborn human organism, one invokes the equal protection conflict that arises when one "person" exists inside another.
And in the United States, at least, there really isn't any legitimate way around the question; the supreme law of the land is the supreme law of the land. To the other, one might suggest that such problematic outcomes could only result if we are so irrational as to respect the supreme law of the land.
Very well, then: The rights to life and equal protection vest in a person at the moment of fertilization. What happens next?
And remember: Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Which means that ignoring the U.S. Constitution is not an option, no matter how rational one might think it is to do so.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Florida shields pages from abortion debate". MSNBC. April 15, 2014. MSNBC.com. May 10, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/florida-shields-pages-abortion-debate
Weinstein, Adam. "Legislators Ban Young Impressionable Interns During Abortion Debate". Gawker. April 10, 2014. Gawker.com. May 10, 2014. http://gawker.com/florida-house-bans-young-impressionable-interns-during-1561719906
South Carolina General Assembly. "H.3323 Personhood Act of South Carolina". 120th Session, 2013-14. SCStateHouse.gov. May 10, 2014. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/3323.htm
Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Law.Cornell.edu. May 10, 2014. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution