The Freedom From Religion Foundation is erecting protest billboards across the nation, including Colorado Springs. (Photo/JasonTromm, Flickr)

Just think of it! The absence of religious differences in beliefs would mean an immediate end to many wars, including the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinians; Muslims fighting Christians in Africa and Indonesia; Muslims and Hindus sparring in Bangladesh; battles in Sri Lanka. There would no longer be a basis for hostilities between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, and they could work together to create a better country, affecting the entire Middle East.

If everyone in the world suddenly decided to no longer believe in an unproven, unseen being, there would be no call for suicide bombers, ending the so-called “War on Terror.”

Of course some wars are fought to acquire necessary resources. But whether the goal is obtaining oil or gaining territory for Lebensraum, it is caused by the needs of a populace that has exceeded its native resources. World population, now more than 6.7 billion, is heading toward 8 billion by 2025, requiring yet more space, more food and more resources. (In 2000, 1.1 billion people did not have reasonable access to safe drinking water, leading to 1.7 million deaths.)

If religious opposition to birth control suddenly ceased, our government could address this growth, resuming its commitment to providing adequate family planning to the 201 million women worldwide who lack it now. That would avert 52 million pregnancies a year. Poverty would be reduced, as well as environmental degradation and resource depletion. The contribution to reducing global warming would be enormous.

Modern contraceptive use could also prevent, annually, 215,000 pregnancy-related deaths and 685,000 cases of children losing their mothers from those deaths.

Here at home, without religious groups pressuring our lawmakers, our government could affirm a woman’s right to avoid unintended pregnancy by increasing funding for Title X family-planning programs and repealing the restrictions on public funding for abortion. It could mandate comprehensive sex education, saving the $170 million it now pays each year for abstinence-only sex education, which puts so many of our children at risk for unplanned pregnancies as well as sexually transmitted diseases. Without religion, pharmacists would have no reason to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives.

And think what medical marvels the 21st century might see if radical extremists stopped opposing embryonic stem cell research! Their devotion to a 5-day-old clump of cells has contributed to an untold number of deaths of living, suffering persons.

It was religionists that delayed research into cures for the new disease of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s, because they believed it was God’s punishment for what they considered sexual deviancy. Even today religious opposition to condoms and the diversion of funds for teaching “abstinence” impede efforts to control one of the most destructive health crises of modern times. Today some 38 million people are living with AIDS, and over 20 million have died.

Such judgmental condemnation of homosexuality, prevalent throughout Roman Catholic and evangelical religions in our country, causes untold emotional distress as well. Without religion, this psychological persecution would end and would make the debate about gay marriage a non-issue.

Religion has a sad history of sexual molestations of youngsters by members of the clergy, especially Catholic priests. This, thankfully, would cease. As would the fear of everlasting punishment in the afterlife, one of religion’s most potent weapons to maintain control over the lives of its congregations. This doctrine qualifies as child abuse when it terrifies children. Computer Web sites, which children can easily access, quote Bible passages to vividly describe, in graphic detail, the eternal torments awaiting transgressors in Hell. (View one such site at http://www.av1611.org/hell.html.) Without the protection that society now automatically affords religion, we could classify such sites as obscene, as well as the book that preaches a god engaged in such sadistic torture. With religion gone, both Hell and the Devil would disappear. Good riddance!

A world without religion could concentrate on the greater good for humanity, employing science and logic rather than dogma. The time, energy and resources now expended on religion could be devoted to preserving our fragile environment for future generations and ensuring that every individual has the means to experience the fullness of the life we’re given.

Janet Brazill is a retired computer systems analyst, now engaged in social and political activism. She lives in Colorado Springs.

The simple-sounding proposal — that the fertilized egg will be legally considered a “person” in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law — has a multitude of far-reaching implications. All of them are bad for women, and some could be bad for businesses, as well.

First, this amendment would ban all abortions, overriding the common-sense guidelines of Roe v. Wade. This could create a death sentence for those women unlucky enough to have ectopic pregnancies or other life-threatening conditions, and it could mean lifetime impairment for many with serious health conditions.

Next, it would ban the most effective contraceptives. The pill, the patch, the NuvaRing, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Implanon and Plan B would all become illegal, because any contraceptive that might inhibit the natural development of a fertilized egg-person would violate its right to life. Deprived of the means to control the size of their families, many women would be unable to work outside the home, suffering economic deprivation.

And of course passage of Amendment 48 would prevent any development of embryonic stem cell research in Colorado, even with private money. It might even prohibit residents from seeking treatment outside the state. (In 2003 the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 534, making it illegal for American patients to return home if they had received treatment using therapeutic cloning research abroad.)

These dire results can all be predicted based on the concept of a fertilized egg’s being declared a legal “person.” Beyond those, however, lies a vast area of dreadful possibilities. Thousands of laws would have to be reviewed and resolved by the lawyers, politicians and the courts to determine what liability employers would incur. Suppose a pregnant woman suffers an accident on the job and miscarries, could the employer be held responsible for the death of the fetus-person? The courts might require a large disability payment to compensate the woman for her loss or, even worse, sentence that employer to prison for negligent homicide!

No employer could afford to take that risk. The only women it would be safe to hire would be those who could prove they were medically unable to become pregnant. Privacy concerns would need to be waived to be hired, while fertile women would go largely unemployed. (Even if overtly prohibited, such discrimination would be covertly practiced!)

Similar questions would apply to cases of other accidents happening to insured participants, such as those involving cars, motorcycles and planes. With so many legal ramifications of the amendment still unknown, the only certainty we have is that this amendment would be good for the trial lawyers!

Incorporating the idea of fetal personhood into our state constitution creates too many unknowns. Its immediate effect, however, would be to challenge women’s autonomy over their own bodies, making them second-class citizens with the status of their personhood subject to the judgment of the courts. Such a concept is reminiscent of the Middle Ages and has no place in today’s world.

Janet Brazill is a retired computer systems analyst, now engaged in social and political activism. She lives in Colorado Springs.

Editor’s note: For more on the proponents who are pushing Amendment 4, check out Wendy Norris’ recent two-part series: Colorado personhood law backer to militant anti-abortion groups Part 1: Shedding light on Amendment 48′s true intent and Fanning the radical anti-abortion flames in Colorado.

On April 16, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) approved a major resolution urging all member states to decriminalize abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, and to guarantee women’s ability to obtain an abortion.

In addition, the resolution specifies that states should provide access to affordable contraception and family planning services and that compulsory age-appropriate, gender-sensitive sex and relationships education for young people should be developed.

The Council of Europe, which integrates nearly all the states of Europe, was founded in 1949 after Sir Winston Churchill called for its creation. One of its missions is the protection of human rights. Resolution 1607 can be read by clicking here, but here are the main points:

1. The Parliamentary Assembly reaffirms that abortion can in no circumstances be regarded as a family planning method. Abortion must, as far as possible, be avoided. All possible means compatible with women’s rights must be used to reduce the number of both unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

2. In most of the Council of Europe member states, the law permits abortion in order to save the woman’s life. Abortion is permitted in the majority of other European countries for a number of reasons including to preserve physical and mental health, rape and incest, fetal impairment, economic and social reasons, and in some countries on request. The Assembly is, however, concerned that in many of these states, numerous conditions are imposed and that they restrict the effective access to safe, affordable, acceptable and appropriate abortion services. These restrictions have discriminatory effects, since women who are well-informed and possess adequate financial means can often obtain legal and safe abortions more easily.

3. The Assembly also notes that, in member states where abortion is permitted for a number of reasons, conditions are not always such as to guarantee women effective access to this right: the lack of local health care facilities, the lack of doctors willing to carry out abortions, the repeated medical consultations required, the time allowed for changing one’s mind and the waiting time for the abortion all have the potential to make access to safe, affordable, acceptable and appropriate abortion services more difficult, or even impossible in practice.

4. The Assembly takes the view that abortion should not be banned within reasonable gestational limits. A ban on abortions does not result in fewer abortions, but mainly leads to clandestine abortions, which are more traumatic and increase maternal mortality and/or lead to abortion "tourism" which is costly and delays the timing of an abortion and results in social inequities. The lawfulness of abortion does not have an effect on a woman’s need for an abortion, but only on her access to a safe abortion.

5. At the same time, evidence shows that appropriate sexual and reproductive health and rights strategies and policies, including compulsory age-appropriate, gender-sensitive sex and relationships education for young people, results in less recourse to abortion. This education should include teaching on self-esteem, healthy relationships, the freedom to delay sexual activity, avoiding peer pressure, contraceptive advice, and considering consequences and responsibilities.

6. The Assembly affirms the right of all human beings, women included, to respect for their physical integrity and to freedom to control their own bodies. In this context, the ultimate decision on whether or not to have an abortion should be a matter for the woman concerned, and she should have the means of exercising this right in an effective way.

(The remainder of the document lists specific actions member states can take to achieve these goals.)

Now, honestly, doesn’t reading such a mature, sensible document make you feel ashamed that here in Colorado voters will likely be asked in November to consider the inane idea that the sanctity of a fertilized egg cannot be violated — no matter how much suffering it may cause to those already born?

Janet Brazill is a retired computer systems analyst, now engaged in social and political activism. She lives in Colorado Springs.