Colorado Amendment 62

Colorado Amendment 62 was an initiated constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 2, 2010 ballot defining personhood as “every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” It sought to ban abortion

Abortion

Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced...

 in the state of Colorado

Colorado

Colorado is a U.S. state that encompasses much of the Rocky Mountains as well as the northeastern portion of the Colorado Plateau and the western edge of the Great Plains...

 and to challenge Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade, , was a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,...

.

This was the second time a personhood amendment appeared on the Colorado ballot. Both initiatives were led by the umbrella organization Personhood USA, and both initiatives failed.

Text of the Proposal

The text, as it appeared on the ballot, read:

An amendment to the Colorado Constitution applying the term 'person' as used in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

Had it been approved, it would have amended Article II of the Colorado Constitution by adding a new section, Section 32, that would read:

Section 32: Person defined. As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

The amendment language was composed by Dianne Irving, a professional biochemist and biologist at Georgetown University.

Past Personhood Amendment Efforts

In 2008, Personhood USA spearheaded a campaign effort behind another personhood amendment, Amendment 48

Colorado Amendment 48 (2008)

Colorado Amendment 48 is a proposed initiative to amend the definition of a person to "any human being from the moment of fertilization."The initiative was proposed jointly by Kristine Burton and Michael Burton of Colorado for Equal Rights....

, also in Colorado. This amendment failed 73.2% to 26.8%.

Differences Between Amendment 48 and Amendment 62

The text of Amendment 62 differs slightly from that of Amendment 48. Amendment 48 defined personhood as beginning “from the moment of fertilization.” Keith Mason, founder of Personhood USA, explained they changed the wording because of concerns that including the word “fertilization” would protect human cloning

Human cloning

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human. It does not usually refer to monozygotic multiple births nor the reproduction of human cells or tissue. The ethics of cloning is an extremely controversial issue...

.

Support

Most of the support for Amendment 62 came from Colorado Right to Life

Colorado Right to Life

Colorado Right to Life is an American pro-life advocacy group based in the state of Colorado. CRTL believes all human beings not convicted of a capital crime have a right to life from the moment of fertilization until natural death...

and Personhood USA. In addition, a vast majority of the Republican candidates running in Colorado in 2010 voiced their support of the personhood amendment. This is in contrast to 2008, in which many of the Republican candidates were against Amendment 48.

The arguments used by supporters focused on the idea that rights were being to human beings who had not yet been born. In one radio ad, Personhood Colorado compared fetuses being denied the status of personhood to slaves being denied the status of a full person.

Opposition

Many groups, including NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Coalition for Secular Government, National Advocate for Pregnant Women, and Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights opposed this amendment. Most notably, there were key religious groups in opposition to Amendment 62, including the Colorado Catholic Conference and the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado.

Opponents to Amendment 62 argued that the proposed initiative was a government intrusion into private life, that it was an attack on women’s right, and that it discouraged quality health care and family planning by coming in between a woman and her doctor. Opponents also noted that the amendment would ban in-vitro fertilization and some forms of birth control, including the morning after pill. News columnist Ed Quillen suggested that every miscarriage would result in an investigation, since it would be a death that did not occur under medical supervision. Jeremy Shaver, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, said that the amendment, just like Amendment 48, was “an overt attempt to insert religion into law.”

Election Results