Colorado voters should reject a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define a fertilized human egg as a human being.
Such a change would usher in a host of legal problems, contradict U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and undoubtedly be rejected by the courts.
We opposed the amendment before it was placed onto the ballot and oppose it still.
We do so for many reasons. While personal definitions of when life begins are varied, Amendment 48's definition doesn't fit with good science.
Medical and scientific experts set the start of pregnancy at the point a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus.
"As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization," the measure reads.
The three sections mentioned are part of the state's Bill of Rights that protect our rights to life, liberty and property. Simply put, Amendment 48 asks that society grant a free-floating fertilized egg the same protections we enjoy as living Americans.
Amendment 48 would make killers of those who use many forms of common contraception. It would prohibit the so-called "morning after" pill that many rape victims rely on to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Opponents to the amendment have listed many extreme and bizarre scenarios that the definition would create. We share those concerns.
Consider the fact that it is not unusual for a fertilized egg to naturally slip from the uterus without implanting. And even when implantation is successful, miscarriages often result in early stages of pregnancy.
If made into law, Amendment 48 could allow a man to sue a woman with whom he had conceived for wrongful death of his fertilized egg. It could subject a woman who had miscarried to charges of negligent homicide.
And what of couples who attempt pregnancy through in vitro fertilization? The process uses multiple fertilized eggs, though only one or two of them are expected to implant and start pregnancies. Those embryos that are frozen and set aside would have to be protected, as destroying them would be to engage in homicide.
As we said when it was introduced, Amendment 48 is a mischievous attempt to ban abortion that would stand in clear contradiction to federal law. The debate over personhood was settled in 1973 by the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision on whether states could outlaw abortions. The court defined a fetus as a person if it developed into the third trimester and said states could not ban abortions of fetuses until that late stage in a pregnancy.
The high court's definition works. Amendment 48's doesn't. Amendment 48 is an inane flight of fancy and we urge voters to treat it as such at the polls.