Eight months pregnant, confused and suffering psychological disorders, Jessica Clyburn jumped from a fifth story window in South Carolina. According to the media, she had attempted unsuccessfully to commit suicide. According to the local district attorney’s office, she committed murder.

Pregnant personhood (mahalie; cc Flickr)
“Clyburn survived but suffered a stillbirth as a result of the fall. She was arrested on homicide charges and is still being held without bail,” attorney Lynn M. Paltrow, founder and executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women told The Colorado Independent.
If the Colorado Personhood Initiative were to pass next year, Paltrow said the state will see a host of new criminal offenders like Clyburn and a growing docket of personhood crimes. Coloradans should brace themselves, she said, for “Carolinafication.”
Sponsored by pro-life activist organization Personhood USA as part of a national campaign, ballot initiative 25 would amend the state constitution in more than 20,000 places, granting even the cells of a fertilized egg full legal rights while working to effectively limit the rights of pregnant women. Legal experts say the law would lead to outlandish and oppressive applications.
“Constitutional jurisprudence is all about weighing interests,” former Planned Parenthood attorney Kevin C. Paul of Heizer Paul LLP told The Colorado Independent. “If you’re creating a new interest, one that hadn’t existed previously, then that interest is going to have to be weighed against [those of] anybody else. And if you take the position that an unborn fetus is to be legally treated just the same as a woman, then those two interests clash.”
Should the personhood initiative pass, he said, it’s clear women could be held by the state to ensure the safety of a fetus.
Mark Silverstein, legal director in Colorado of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would apply to women unaware they’re pregnant.
“Let’s say a woman is sexually active and she has a drink. If a drink is determined to harm a potential human life, well wouldn’t it be considered reckless endangerment to have that drink — or to engage in some other type of activity that would pose a risk to a fetus?”
Erik Maulbetsch, also with the ACLU in Colorado, wrote in an email that although the way fetal abuse and women’s rights issues interact are certainly a concern, in his eyes, the immediate threat of “outlawing hormonal birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research, are the most dangerous and intrusive aspects of the proposal.”
Silverstein said the ACLU would actively campaign against Initiative 25, the “son of 48,” referring to the failed Initiative 48, last year’s version of the Colorado Personhood initiative.
Deal with ramifications later
The legal questions surrounding the initiative at this point are not a priority to Personhood USA, which lawyers like Paul see as a problem.
“It’s just a bad idea to try to amend the basis of all other law when the answer to the question ‘What will happen when I do this?’ is simply ‘I really don’t know.’ It is very hard to predict the difficult and even absurd results.
“The term ‘person’ has been legally defined,” he added, “but ‘the beginning of biological development’ has no definition yet.” Paul said the change in language would affect “our fundamental due process rights, the provision to inalienable rights, access to our courts and a right to justice.”
Presented with some of the hypothetical legal and rights issues related to the initiative, Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA and one of the proponents of Initiative 25, said he didn’t want to speculate on the particulars of the bill.
That wasn’t good enough for Abe Saur, associate editor at lefty grab-bag politics and criticism site The Awl. He asked Mason whether clinically obese pregnant woman, who have a 30-percent higher risk than non-obese women of giving birth to children with heart disease, could be convicted of abuse or murder.
Will we be criminalizing the pregnant obese? Saur asked.
“I can’t answer that because it’s a hypothetical,” said Mason. “It’s like asking what would happen if a Martian came down and impregnated a woman on Earth. Let’s talk about real issues.”
Mason said he would “worry about the [legal] details later,” after the bill had passed.
Losing one’s personhood
“We know, based on hundreds of cases across the country, some of them in Colorado, that if, as a matter of law fetuses are described as separate persons, essentially pregnant women lose their Personhood,” Paltrow said.
The ACLU’s Silverstein said that although it would take numerous court cases to determine specifically how personhood would affect Colorado law, the effect of providing an unborn child personhood rights would unquestionably restrict the civil rights of women.
But Personhood Colorado director and the initiative proponent Gualberto Garcia Jones said the law is designed not to infringe rights but to extend them. Initiative 25 is slightly updated to be more inclusive than last year’s Initiative 48. We’ve changed “the initial marker for the beginning of life from fertilization to the beginning of the biological development of a human being,” he said.
“It’s intended to account for human beings who may be created through asexual reproduction in laboratories and used as raw material for research, organs, or stem cells. Fertilization would not have properly applied to asexually reproduced humans, but even asexually reproduced human beings have a definite biological beginning.”
It’s not that simple, said Silverstein. Presently, Colorado Code defines homicide, for example, as “the killing of a person by another.” The code also says that a person is someone who has been born and is alive at the time of the homicidal act. “If personhood applies to the criminal code, then you have homicide involving persons who have not even been born — to persons who might be a single cell,” Silverstein said.
Paltrow said that all it would take is one child welfare worker, one doctor, one individual to decide that a woman is endangering the life of her unborn child and she could be arrested and taken away.
“Colorado like every state has a civil commitment law. Civil commitment is a process established under mental health laws to confine individuals believed to pose a danger to themselves or others. If the [personhood] measure succeeds and the unborn are defined as having full constitutional rights, the state could commit a pregnant woman from the moment of fertilization if she is perceived to pose a danger to the fertilized egg.”
Carolinafication
The South Carolina Courts in 1997 ruled that fetuses that can survive outside the womb are persons under child abuse rules. As a result, 90 women have been arrested there, including Clyburn.
Another is South Carolinan, Regina McKnight, who smoked crack cocaine in 1999 while she was pregnant. Her unborn baby died in the eighth month. Twenty-four-year-old McKnight, who had three other young children at the time and was pregnant again, was convicted of murder and sentenced to a 12-year prison term.
“Once a personhood measure passed there would be no limit” to the controls the state could place on a suspect pregnant woman, said Paltrow. “Civil commitment laws could be used to keep a woman from, say, working in certain jobs, taking a wide range of medications, or even leaving town so she could have a vaginal birth after a c-section,” which can be seen as endangering the fetus.
These cases aren’t theoretical.
Paltrow described the experience of Angela Carter, who was undergoing treatment for severe cancer. Carter was forced by doctors concerned with the health of the fetus to have a cesarean section. Both Carter and the fetus died. The C-section was listed as one of the causes for the mother’s death . Although the courts found that the hospital acted outside of its legal rights at the time, Paltrow said the personhood amendment would make such actions common place.
“Once you have defined a fetus as a separate person from the mother, the state has the power to literally take custody of a pregnant woman from the moment she conceives.”
Jonathan Van Blerkom, a University of Colorado at Boulder professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology, agreed that zygotes in fertility clinics would be protected. He said not only researchers involved in embryonic stem cell research but also individuals looking to participate in in-vitro fertilization programs would be affected.
“We are talking about embryos in the one cell stage … What happens when a liquid nitrogen tank, which keeps embryos frozen in storage, is damaged? It happened during an earthquake in California. Concrete fell on a tank and all of the embryos were destroyed. Is there criminal liability there?”
Like others, Silverstein sees the personhood drive as misguided and a sweeping end run around the legal right to abortion. The proposed initiative simply has not been thought through, he said.
“If a woman has a beer while she is pregnant is she furnishing alcohol to a minor?”








View Comments
Pingback posted November 6, 2009 @ 8:47 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMC Member Feed, Samantha Griffin. Samantha Griffin said: Misogyny in the name of fetuses???! RT @COindependent – Anti-abortion ‘personhood’ measures shrink the rights of women http://bit.ly/4dwvQ9 [...]
Trackback posted November 6, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by phillydesign: Colorado ‘Personhood’ ballot initiative threatens women’s rights. Having a drink while pregnant cd be considered crime. http://bit.ly/1opDFY...
Pingback posted November 6, 2009 @ 11:11 am
[...] Anti-Abortion ‘Personhood’ Measures Shrink The Rights Of Women 11/6/09 Colorado Independent: Ballot initiative 25 would amend the state constitution in more than 20,000 places, granting even the cells of a fertilized egg, full legal rights while working to effectively limit the rights of pregnant women. [...]
Comment posted November 6, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
It should be noted that Lynn Paltrow is a Planned Parenthood, NARAL, apparatchik. Her cover group, NAPW, recently did a hit piece video on Personhood USA, which upon careful scrutiny proved absolutely misleading. See both videos and judge for yourself at personhoodeducation.org
Comment posted November 6, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
As a former fetus, I support the Personhood Amendment.
Comment posted November 6, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
As a mother of five children, I don't see why I should be convicted of murder if I choose to take them to the back yard and shoot them to help my financial situation now, if I could have taken them to an abortion and had them chopped into little pieces to help my financial situation before they were born with impunity. It's just not fair. Either a mother has an inherent right to murder her children, or not.
Comment posted November 6, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
“Once you have defined a fetus as a separate person from the mother, the state has the power to literally take custody of a pregnant woman from the moment she conceives.”
Huh?
A simple DNA test reveals that the pre-born baby is a unique, genetically
distinct and separate human being from his or her mother.
Comment posted November 6, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Just remember that there are religious issues here. Judaism believes that a human does not become human until it takes its first breath. It would be unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe upon or negate ones religious beliefs. And before you get on your high horse, if you were to have your way & law is allowed to be usurped by religious beliefs, then what are you going to do when the pendulum swings the other way and someone wants to tell you that woman have to wear a Burka, or can be stone for “infidelity” if they are gang raped by strangers? Be careful what you wish for. I know its hard for some, but try to think beyond the nose on your face.
Comment posted November 6, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
So what, if some Jews believe that you are not a human being until you are breathing. Some sects believe you cannot accept blood transfusions, and the government rightly provides the children with treatment if necessary to sve their life. The only religious issue is the liberal sacrament of abortion.
Comment posted November 7, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
“Once you have defined a fetus as a separate person from the mother, the state has the power to literally take custody of a pregnant woman from the moment she conceives.”
Absurd statement! Only disingenuous people make assumptions like this one. The amendment is intended to protect the rights of both the mother and the child.
Comment posted November 8, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
The state needs to stay out of bedrooms and out of a person's body. It is ironic to me that we have to watch people screaming about their freedoms every day of the week and that those same people are so anxious to take over other people's lives. If this law was about prosecuting men for abusing their sperm by leaving it laying around everywhere, we wouldn't be discussing this. A pregnant woman is a real person. She isn't just a machine that is being used to produce new people. The state has no business imposing itself. If it becomes a crime to be pregnant, who will have the babies, my friends?
Comment posted November 8, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Karela, I absolutely agree with you. I'm glad I no longer live in CO. This is very scarey . Mary
Comment posted November 9, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Folks, cellular biology and sound medical science tell us that the difference between and unborn child and a born child are no different than an infant and a fit 20-year-old. The Personhood movement seeks to have that recognized legally and protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
If I become disinterested in my three-year-old, can I shoot him?
If I get drunk and my son wanders into the street and is hit by a car, isn't that neglect?
If I attempt to commit suicide and the bullet flies through me, into my child, killing him, yet I survive, won't I be charged with manslaughter, at least.
By allowing abortion to be legal in ANY case, except the life of the mother, we say that there are members of our society that are far less valuable than others.
Comment posted November 9, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
I have a religious belief that includes raping the elderly and beating elected officials with huge, dead fish. Respect that.
Comment posted November 9, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Hypothetical situation: In your basement you have a freezer with 10 fertilized embryos, which can possibly be implanted into a woman's uterus to develop. Upstairs is your sleeping 3 year old child. You're on the ground floor and your house sets on fire. You only have time to save either the embryos or the 3 year old, but not both. Who do you save? What if it were 100 embryos? 1000?
To everyone who thinks an embryo has as much right to life as a breathing human being, then I'm calling you a murderer if you're not willing to let your child die over even 2 embryos. Stop trying to oppress women's rights for the sake of something not even born. What's the end result? Confinement camps for all pregnant women to make sure they behave? I'm not trying to say an embryo has no rights whatsoever, but to say it has more rights than a mature woman is saying that women are merely machines to pop out babies and nothing more. By giving embryos personhood, you're taking away the personhood of every single woman.
Comment posted November 9, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Now that is just ridiculous. You cannot compare some zygote in my belly with beating a living, breathing person. Your view implies that the zygote in my belly has more rights than I do. Bull. I could turn it around and say masturbation should be outlawed because it wastes sperm that could become viable.
Comment posted November 9, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
What do you mean, “some” Jews? That is as much a part of the Jewish faith as “Jesus died for our sins” is part of the Christian faith. Again, the issue you cite, re: children, concerns human beings that have already been born. And, again, you are saying that a zygote inside of me has more rights than I do. And again, Bull. And if abortion were a sacrament, the race wouldn't survive long…I ask you to respond to the initial statement that if government has a right to make these decisions for women, usurping their power over their own body, then what can possibly prevent them from making laws in the other direction: like forcing women to have abortions if the circumstances were conducive to it. The way it is now, I can't force anyone to have an abortion based on what might be good for the environment or whatever, but the trade-off is, you can't force me to carry a child to term if I determine that it is not in my best interests.
Comment posted November 10, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
First, we're saying equal rights, not superior rights. Your rights end where another's begin. Sure, right to your body, but we're talking about the body of the unborn child. The bottom line is that the pregnancy isn't the child's fault, no matter whose it is.
This is an irrelevant situation you've concocted. Let's say I'm running an orphanage with 200 children. I can only save several children myself and the others die in this fire. Am I a murderer? No, I'm not. If I started the fire, sure, but your 'example' makes no sense.
Comment posted November 10, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
You can call it what you want, but its science. My sperm has my DNA; your eggs have your DNA. Put them together and we've got new DNA that is completely independent of both of us. What is an organism with human DNA? A human, of course!
The only differences between an unborn child (zygote or embryo) are appearance, location, level of dependence and stage of development. We don't discriminate against a born person based on any of these descriptions. The only way its gotten away with on unborn humans is 'out of sight, out of mind'. You can't defend abortion or other embryo destruction using scientific or medical facts, only emotions and opinions.
Noone is trying to give the unborn MORE rights than mothers, simply equal rights. Sure, you've got rights to your body, but that person is a person- not part of your body.
Please don't use the “you're a man” argument, either. My wife's just as pro-life and I am, and most leaders in the pro-life movement are women.
Comment posted November 10, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Yea it does. In your example, your choice is dictated by who's closest, easiest to save, etc, then hope that the firefighters can save the rest. You did your best and that's all anyone asked. In my example, you're making a choice as to who you WANT to save, not out of practicality seeing as they're both equally save-able. Would you feel as morally torn in your situation as your would mine? How would your children feel knowing you cared more for (or even equal to) some frozen embryos than u did about them?
And when you say that a woman's rights end when she becomes pregnant and her fetus's rights take over, then you ARE saying the fetus's rights are superior. That's what “take over” means, to be in charge of, have more power than. Why should my rights as a woman and a human being end just because I got pregnant? Sure pregnancy isn't the fetus's fault, but it's only 1/2 the woman's fault (sometimes not even if she was raped). Where's the call for men to stand up and take any responsibility for their offspring?
Comment posted November 11, 2009 @ 5:51 am
You're still putting words in my mouth. When a woman becomes pregnant, I'm not insinuating that her rights should end, I'm arguing that the rights of another human being have come into effect. That unborn person (biologically proven) has rights inalienable. At that time, you may do many things to your body that noone can stop you from. But, ending that child's life is just that- ending a life
I am fully aware that too many 'men' are not actually men, if you follow me. I am fully in support of harsher penalties on derelict 'fathers', and am active in the lives of youth in my community, frequently coming in contact with young guys who need counseling in that area. Where's the call? I'm making it and noone's saying you shouldn't either- please do. Its a needed call, and an essential one to tackle the overall problem of a loss of personal responsibility amongst Americans.
Comment posted November 12, 2009 @ 8:41 am
I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.
ugg classic tall
Only One word to characterize such a great post “WOW” that was a very interesting read
ugg classic tall boots
Pingback posted November 12, 2009 @ 9:28 am
[...] article was originally published at Colorado Independent and is printed here under a partnership between Colorado Independent, the Center for Independent [...]
Comment posted December 3, 2009 @ 2:07 am
Stem Cell storage is today's revolutionary idea. To get best return return on money spent by you, ask for a controlled rate freezer that has a long shelf life such as Princetoncryo's Control Rate Freezer. Their low-cost solution for Planer controlled rate freezer maintenance uses certified OEM parts and recalibration to keep your critical cryopreservation applications functioning at ideal conditions.
http://www.princetoncryo.com/control-rate-freez...
Comment posted December 3, 2009 @ 3:07 am
Stem Cell storage is today's revolutionary idea. To get best return return on money spent by you, ask for a controlled rate freezer that has a long shelf life such as Princetoncryo's Control Rate Freezer. Their low-cost solution for Planer controlled rate freezer maintenance uses certified OEM parts and recalibration to keep your critical cryopreservation applications functioning at ideal conditions.
http://www.princetoncryo.com/control-rate-freez...
Comment posted March 23, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
Okay, Katie. Let's change your little hypothetical situation. Your house is burning down. Your daughter's upstairs, and three neighbor kids are downstairs. Who are you gonna save? That's an irrelevant analogy…you would save your own daughter. Is it murder if you save your kid and don't have time to save the other kids? I don't think so. I don't think I would go to jail if I saved my kid and didn't have time to save the others, and they consequently died.
It's not just the women who are involved in conception. Why do people ignore the fact that men have a part in this? Why is all about women's rights? Do women keep a spare penis around full of semen and inject it into themselves to get pregnant? No! A man is involved.
The end result? Confinement camps? Come on, Katie. Get real!
If women and men would stop using abortion as birth control, I think that would be a great improvement. People try to argue that abortion is used for rape and incest cases, but that is less than 3 percent (as of 2008). Clearly, you are not one of those people, but I thought I'd point that out for anyone else reading.
So nice try at posting your “tough” questions, but FAIL!
Comment posted March 24, 2010 @ 2:51 am
Okay, Katie. Let's change your little hypothetical situation. Your house is burning down. Your daughter's upstairs, and three neighbor kids are downstairs. Who are you gonna save? That's an irrelevant analogy…you would save your own daughter. Is it murder if you save your kid and don't have time to save the other kids? I don't think so. I don't think I would go to jail if I saved my kid and didn't have time to save the others, and they consequently died.
It's not just the women who are involved in conception. Why do people ignore the fact that men have a part in this? Why is all about women's rights? Do women keep a spare penis around full of semen and inject it into themselves to get pregnant? No! A man is involved.
The end result? Confinement camps? Come on, Katie. Get real!
If women and men would stop using abortion as birth control, I think that would be a great improvement. People try to argue that abortion is used for rape and incest cases, but that is less than 3 percent (as of 2008). Clearly, you are not one of those people, but I thought I'd point that out for anyone else reading.
So nice try at posting your “tough” questions, but FAIL!
Comment posted April 5, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
All of us who support abortion should come together and pray to Jesus Christ to keep abortion legal so we no longer have to live in bondage of unborn babies nor the oppressions they put on our lives since there are those of us who do support abortion, that is the only way we can win this anti-abortion battle, also even if the law does come to pass we can still pray to have a misscarriage or a still birth and our prayers will be answered so our unborn child will go back to him or to someone who wants them, or to us later on in life when we want them
By the blood of Jesus Christ we are free from all bondages, oppressions, and slavery, I am a pro-choice christian and I encourage for us all to come together and pray, not just for us, but for the whole entire world where our freedoms are being taken away
Comment posted April 5, 2010 @ 10:09 pm
All of us who support abortion should come together and pray to Jesus Christ to keep abortion legal so we no longer have to live in bondage of unborn babies nor the oppressions they put on our lives since there are those of us who do support abortion, that is the only way we can win this anti-abortion battle, also even if the law does come to pass we can still pray to have a misscarriage or a still birth and our prayers will be answered so our unborn child will go back to him or to someone who wants them, or to us later on in life when we want them
By the blood of Jesus Christ we are free from all bondages, oppressions, and slavery, I am a pro-choice christian and I encourage for us all to come together and pray, not just for us, but for the whole entire world where our freedoms are being taken away
Comment posted April 29, 2010 @ 3:14 am
“If women and men would stop using abortion as birth control, I think that would be a great improvement. People try to argue that abortion is used for rape and incest cases, but that is less than 3 percent (as of 2008). “
* I THINK THE PROBLEM IS: that many women, myself included, have a problem with taking oral contraception every day. It messes with our menstrual cycles, makes us nauseous, makes us break out in acne, gain unwanted weight, and those are just the simple unwanted side effects. Let's not forgot the RISKS OF BLOOD CLOTS & HEAR ATTACK.
Therefor many of us do not take “the pill”. Some men, as sexual partners are very disciplined and have no problem wearing a condom. Some men do not, will not wear them, they complain they don't like how they feel, or that they can't feel anyting at all and then you're playing the Russian Roulette game of The Pull Out method.
I once became pregnant even though we stopped having intercourse before he ejaculated. It's not that we finished the sexual act and just sat back and waited to see what would happen.
IF THERE WERE BIRTH CONTROL FOR MEN, something that was effective in temporarily haulting the production of Semen until the man is ready to start a family, ~ there wouldn't be so many abortions every year~. A Birth controll pill for Men was developed a few years ago, it was used on a trial group of Men for a short period of time. They reported feeling naseous, fatigued, and a couple other side effects that WOMEN are expected to endure – and it was never released to the mass markets.
>” Do women keep a spare penis around full of semen and inject it into themselves to get pregnant? No! A man is involved.”
Women do not climb on top of themselves and get pregnant. Men should be JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for preventing unwanted pregnancies. But no, you guys can't be inconvenienced or sacrifice your own pleasure.
Comment posted April 29, 2010 @ 3:17 am
[quote]missyrae:”If women and men would stop using abortion as birth control, I think that would be a great improvement. People try to argue that abortion is used for rape and incest cases, but that is less than 3 percent (as of 2008). “[/quote]
* I THINK THE PROBLEM IS: that many women, myself included, have a problem with taking oral contraception every day. It messes with our menstrual cycles, makes us nauseous, makes us break out in acne, gain unwanted weight, and those are just the simple unwanted side effects. Let's not forgot the RISKS OF BLOOD CLOTS & HEAR ATTACK.
Therefor many of us do not take “the pill”. Some men, as sexual partners are very disciplined and have no problem wearing a condom. Some men do not, will not wear them, they complain they don't like how they feel, or that they can't feel anyting at all and then you're playing the Russian Roulette game of The Pull Out method.
I once became pregnant even though we stopped having intercourse before he ejaculated. It's not that we finished the sexual act and just sat back and waited to see what would happen.
IF THERE WERE BIRTH CONTROL FOR MEN; something that was effective in temporarily haulting the production of Semen until the man is ready to start a family, ~ there wouldn't be so many abortions every year~. A Birth controll pill for Men was developed a few years ago, it was used on a trial group of Men for a short period of time. They reported feeling naseous, fatigued, and a couple other side effects that WOMEN are expected to endure – and it was never released to the mass markets.
[quote]missyrae:”Do women keep a spare penis around full of semen and inject it into themselves to get pregnant? No! A man is involved.”[/quote]
Women do not climb on top of themselves and get pregnant. Men should be JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for preventing unwanted pregnancies. But no, you guys can't be inconvenienced or sacrifice your own pleasure
Comment posted April 29, 2010 @ 3:27 am
it is not SEPARATE from it's mother. It needs her to survive. It is like a parasite, robbing her body of its nutrients in order to ensure its own survival. That's why so many women become anemic during pregnancy, or require a daily multivitamin, to keep her healthy while the parasite feeds off of her.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.