Under Trump, The Health And Human Services Department Edited Its Strategic Plan To Say Life Begins At Conception

HHS Draft Strategic Plan: “HHS Accomplishes Its Mission Through Programs And Initiatives That Cover A Wide Spectrum Of Activities, Serving And Protecting Americans At Every Stage Of Life, Beginning At Conception.” According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception.” [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Draft Strategic Plan, accessed 10/11/17]

Under The Obama Administration, The Same Sentence Did Not Include The Phrase “Beginning At Conception.” According to Ellie Shechet in Jezebel, “In a move that was largely overlooked, earlier this month the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) dropped its draft strategic plan for 2018-2022. Given that HHS is run by people who think women should not have access to birth control, much less abortion care, it certainly is a [expletive] doozy, and a doozy worth looking at. As Dr. Jen Gunter recently pointed out in her blog on the plan, one of the very first things this document does is define life at conception, right at the beginning of the second paragraph. Let’s take a gander at what this sentence looked like under the Obama administration: HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving Americans at every stage of life. And now: HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception. Just so we are all clear! This is restated later on in Strategic Goal 3, with an additional nod to the department’s apparent stance on assisted suicide: ‘A core component of the HHS mission is our dedication to serve all Americans from conception to natural death…’” [Ellie Shechet – Jezebel, 10/10/17]

Pence Co-Sponsored Three “Personhood” Bills As A Member Of Congress

Then-Representatives Mike Pence And Tom Price Co-Sponsored Two Pieces Of Legislation That Would Define A Fertilized Egg As A Legal Person. According to Business Insider, “Georgia Representative Tom Price, who has been tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to run the Department of Health and Human Services, has twice co-sponsored federal legislation that would define fertilized human eggs as legal persons — a move that would outlaw not just abortion, but also potentially birth control pills and other common methods of contraception. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, then a congressman from Indiana, also co-sponsored that bill, which was introduced in 2005 and 2007, as well as similar legislation in 2011.” [Business Insider, 12/9/17]

• Pence And Price Co-Sponsored The “Right To Life Act” In 2005. [Congress.gov, H.R. 552, 2/2/05]
• The Right To Life Act Defined “Human Being” To Include “The Moment Of Fertilization.” According to Congress, “Right to Life Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Defines ‘human being’ (and ‘human person’) to encompass all stages of life, including but not limited to the moment of fertilization or cloning.” [Congress.gov, H.R. 618, 2/2/05]
• Pence And Price Co-Sponsored The “Right To Life Act” In 2007. [Congress.gov, H.R. 618, 1/22/07]
• The Right To Life Act Defined “Human Being” To Include “The Moment Of Fertilization.” According to Congress, “Right to Life Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Defines ‘human being’ to encompass all stages of life, including but not limited to the moment of fertilization or cloning.” [Congress.gov, H.R. 618, 1/22/07]

Pence Co-Sponsored A Third “Personhood” Bill In 2011

Pence Co-Sponsored The “Life At Conception Act” In 2011. [Congress.gov, H.R. 374, 1/20/11]

• The Life At Conception Act Gave The Right To Life “Guaranteed By The Constitution” Beginning At The Moment Of Fertilization. According to Congress, “Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” [Congress.gov, H.R. 374, 1/20/11]

Pence Said He Believes That “Life Begins At Conception”

Pence: “As A Pro-Life American, I Believe That Life Begins At Conception.” While appearing on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Pence said, “Well, Jeffrey, as a pro-life American, I believe that life begins at conception.” [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 5/23/05]

Pence: “Science Ought To Always Back Carefully Away Where Human Life Is Involved.” While appearing on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Pence said, “And this business of arguing a utilitarian argument, instead of the larger argument that science ought to always back carefully away where human life is involved, would be the position I would hold, and that millions of American taxpayers believe today.” [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 5/23/05]

Pence Believed A Fetus In Utero To Be “An Innocent Human Life.” According to an op-ed by Mike Pence, “‘I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong.’” [Op-Ed – Mike Pence, 2/24/11]

Pence Said That The 14th Amendment Applies To Unborn Children

2000: Pence Called For Making “Clear That The 14th Amendment’s Protections Apply To Unborn Children.” According to Mike Pence For Congress, “In support of this cause, the 107th Congress should: […] • endorse legislation that makes clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” [Mike Pence For Congress via Wayback Machine, 2000]

“Personhood” Laws Would Circumvent The Right To An Abortion Under Roe V. Wade

“Personhood” Laws Could Lead To A Ban On All Abortions, Overruling Roe V. Wade. According to the National Women’s Law Center, “Other abortion opponents have sought to overrule Roe v. Wade directly.  These efforts include so-called ‘personhood’ initiatives that would establish legal rights for fertilized eggs, which could result not only in a ban on all abortions, but could also outlaw certain forms of contraception and fertility treatment.  The abortion opponents pushing direct challenges have made it clear that their goal is to find a case that will result in the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.  If Roe is overturned, it would leave abortion decisions to politicians in Congress and states.  Groups on both sides of this issue agree that at least 30 states are poised to make abortion illegal within a year if that were to happen.” [National Women’s Law Center, 1/18/13]

“Personhood” Laws Would Effectively Criminalize Many Common Forms Of Birth Control, Including The Pill

Personhood Legislation Would Have Turned Many Forms Of Contraception Into Potential Implements Of Murder, As Well As Outlawing Abortion. According to the Daily Beast, “Likely future Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price has never met an anti-abortion cause he won’t rally behind. In 2005, he co-sponsored a bill in the House that would have defined human life as beginning at the moment of conception. That would have turned many forms of contraception—IUDs, the morning-after pill, and good old hormonal birth control pills—into potential implements of murder in the eyes of the law, as well as outlawing most abortions. In vitro fertilization would also get much more complicated if the government officially recognizes zygotes as just as human and alive as, say, a 10-year-old child or likely future Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price. The concept of ‘personhood,’ as that particular belief became known in more recent years, was so far to the right that when in 2011, when it was put up for a public vote in blood-red Mississippi, it failed by a significant margin.” [Daily Beast, 11/29/16]

Business Insider: Personhood Measures “Would Effectively Outlaw Any Form Of Contraception Other Than Barrier Methods – Including The Pill, The Hormonal Patch, And IUDs.” According to Business Insider, “Even some abortion opponents hesitate to endorse personhood measures because they have such broad implications. They would effectively outlaw any form of contraception other than barrier methods — including the pill, the hormonal patch, and IUDs. Such birth control methods, which have been proven to be the most effective ways of preventing unplanned pregnancies, may sometimes work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (Most medical doctors consider pregnancy to begin at implantation, not fertilization.)” [Business Insider, 12/9/17]

“Personhood” Laws Could Outlaw In Vitro Fertilization, Denying Many Women Their Only Means Of Having Children Of Their Own

Slate: The Right To Life Act “Would Have Banned Abortion In Nearly Every Circumstance, Potentially Prohibited Most Types Of Contraception And In Vitro Fertilization, And Stymied Stem Cell Research.” According to Slate, “The vocal Obamacare opponent, a Republican who’s represented a Georgia district since 2005, has established himself as a hardline anti-abortion, anti-contraception extremist during his time in Congress. During his first term, Price co-sponsored a piece of legislation called the ‘Right to Life Act,’ which would have banned abortion in nearly every circumstance, potentially prohibited most types of contraception and in vitro fertilization, and stymied stem cell research. The bill proposed vesting every zygote (‘preborn human person,’ the bill says) with all the rights of the Constitution from the moment of fertilization. This kind of ‘personhood’ bill would mark the first step toward a draconian society that punishes women who terminate their pregnancies as if they were murderers, like the one an anti-abortion activist group is trying to establish in Florida. These bills provide no exceptions for rape, incest, or threat to a pregnant woman’s life, and would put control over women’s bodies—including, perhaps, what she ate, drank, or did while pregnant—in the hands of the state.” [Slate, 11/29/16]

Daily Beast: “In Vitro Fertilization Would Also Get Much More Complicated If The Government Officially Recognizes Zygotes As Just As Human And Alive As, Say, A 10-Year-Old Child Or Likely Future Secretary Of Health And Human Services Tom Price.” According to the Daily Beast, “Likely future Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price has never met an anti-abortion cause he won’t rally behind. In 2005, he co-sponsored a bill in the House that would have defined human life as beginning at the moment of conception. That would have turned many forms of contraception—IUDs, the morning-after pill, and good old hormonal birth control pills—into potential implements of murder in the eyes of the law, as well as outlawing most abortions. In vitro fertilization would also get much more complicated if the government officially recognizes zygotes as just as human and alive as, say, a 10-year-old child or likely future Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price. The concept of ‘personhood,’ as that particular belief became known in more recent years, was so far to the right that when in 2011, when it was put up for a public vote in blood-red Mississippi, it failed by a significant margin.” [Daily Beast, 11/29/16]

Trump  And Pence Supported Health Care Legislation That Would No Longer Require Marketplace Insurers To Cover Birth Control

Birth Control Is An “Essential Health Benefit” Under The ACA, Meaning All Marketplace Insurers Must Cover It. According to NBC News, ‘Some conservatives reject the AHCA as ‘Obamacare Lite.’ So one proposal is the removal of Obamacare’s ‘10 Essential Benefits’ — the list of things that all health insurance policies taking part in the Obamacare marketplaces must cover. Instead, states could decide what counts as ‘essential’. Here’s a rundown of what they are: […] Preventive services — This includes vaccines, cancer screenings such as mammograms and colonoscopies and, controversially, coverage of birth control.” [NBC News, 3/24/17]

The American Health Care Act Would Have Allowed States To Opt Out Of The ACA’s Essential Health Benefits Requirements. According to Vox, “House Republicans are floating a new amendment to their health care bill, one that would likely cause even more Americans to lose coverage than the last version. The American Health Care Act that House Speaker Paul Ryan introduced into the House last February dismantled parts of Obamacare. It also left popular provisions, like a ban on preexisting conditions and the requirement that insurers cover things like maternity care, intact. This new amendment, offered by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), would allow states to waive out of those key Obamacare regulations too. In particular, this amendment would allow some states to charge higher premiums to Americans with preexisting conditions. States would also have the choice to opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits requirement, as well as the possibility of charging older Americans significantly higher premiums.” [Vox, 4/25/17]

The Better Care Reconciliation Act Would Have Allowed States Decide What Qualifies As An Essential Health Benefit. According to Time, “The Better Care Reconciliation Act, introduced Thursday by Senate Republicans to replace the Affordable Care Act, would both increase pregnancy costs for women, and increase the cost of not getting pregnant. […] Additionally, the bill allows states to redefine what counts as an Essential Health Benefit for Medicaid plans. Currently, all plans must cover 10 categories of care, including prescription drug coverage, maternity care, preventive services like birth control, and mental health care. But those Essential Health Benefits aren’t just on the line for Medicaid enrollees; it’s possible that all women in the individual market could lose those protections. The bill allows states broad waiver authority in what services are covered by insurance plans, which experts told MONEY will allow them to redefine the Essential Health Benefits.” [Time, 6/23/17]

The Graham-Cassidy Bill Would Have Allowed States To Decide What Qualifies As An Essential Health Benefit. According to The Washington Post, under the Graham-Cassidy bill, “States would be allowed to change what qualifies as an essential health benefit.” [Washington Post, 9/25/17]

The Health And Human Services Secretary Could Refine “Preventive” Benefits For Women To No Longer Include Birth Control, Also Eliminating The Mandate That Insurers Cover It

The Department Of Health And Human Services Could Refine “Preventive” Benefits For Women To No Longer Include Birth Control, Eliminating The Mandate That Insurers Cover It. According to Sarah Kliff in Vox, “If you read through the text of the Affordable Care Act, you won’t find any mention of ‘contraceptives’ or ‘birth control.’ That’s because the law doesn’t actually include a mandate to cover contraceptives. Instead, it says that health insurance must cover preventive health benefits for women — and then punts to a division of Health and Human Services to decide what counts. It wasn’t always clear that birth control would make the cut. When Obamacare passed, it was a genuine question whether the Obama administration would include birth control in its list. I know because I covered the debate when I was a reporter at Politico at the time. Groups like Planned Parenthood lobbied the White House to include it. ‘We see this as a tremendous opportunity to get no-cost birth control in the bill and ensure that this part of women’s health is covered under preventive health,’ Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood’s vice president of public policy, told me at the time. Finally, the administration issued regulations in 2011 announcing that it would include birth control as a preventive benefit for women. A Trump administration could write its own regulation to say birth control isn’t preventive health care for women. ‘The administration could by rule redefine these services not to include contraceptives, I believe, without changing the law,’ Timothy Jost, an emeritus professor of law at Washington and Lee University, writes in an email. That regulation wouldn’t need to move through Congress — and could result in millions of women losing one of the health care law’s most popular provisions.” [Sarah Kliff – Vox, 11/10/16]

Personhood Activist Rebecca Kiessling Said Such A Move By Price Would Be “A Personhood Victory.” According to Business Insider, “Price is expected to play a key role in executing Trump’s plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which mandates that health plans cover approved forms of birth control with no copay for most insured women. And Obamacare wouldn’t even need to be repealed for that perk to go away; Price could eliminate it with a regulatory maneuver. Such a change would be ‘a personhood victory,’ said Rebecca Kiessling, a Michigan attorney and president of Save the 1, an affiliate of the Personhood Alliance.” [Business Insider, 12/9/16]

The HHS Secretary Could Undo An Obama-Era Rule Requiring Employers To Cover Birth Control For Their Employees

Business Insider: “As Health Secretary […] Price Could Make It Easier For Employers Or Insurance Plans To Stop Covering Abortion And Birth Control.” According to Business Insider, “As health secretary, for instance, Price could make it easier for employers or insurance plans to stop covering abortion and birth control. He could curtail federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells and contraception. And he, Pence, and Ryan could use their high-profile positions to raise awareness of the personhood movement.” [Business Insider, 12/9/16]

The Trump Administration Indicated It Might Undo An Obama-Era Regulation Requiring Employers To Cover Birth Control In Employee Health Insurance Plans.  According to The Wall Street Journal, “The Trump administration is poised to issue a rule unwinding an Obama -era requirement that employee health benefits include contraception, which will spark a fresh round of litigation over an issue that has been before courts for six years. Federal health officials are expected to finalize a regulation that would allow employers with religious or moral objections to birth control to omit coverage for contraception from their workers’ plans, according to two people familiar with its contents. The regulation closely mirrors an earlier, leaked draft, they said.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/16/17]

Without The Rule, Employers With Religious Or Moral Objections Would Be Allowed To Omit Coverage For Birth Control. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Federal health officials are expected to finalize a regulation that would allow employers with religious or moral objections to birth control to omit coverage for contraception from their workers’ plans, according to two people familiar with its contents. The regulation closely mirrors an earlier, leaked draft, they said.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/16/17]

“Personhood” Activists Would Also Like To See The Weldon Amendment, Which Allows Insurers To Refuse To Cover Abortions, Extended To Employers

Business Insider: Personhood Activists Want The HHS Secretary To “Give Religious Employers, As Well As Insurers, The Right To Eliminate Abortion Coverage From The Health Plans They Offer Their Workers.” According to Business Insider, “Jones, of the Personhood Alliance, wants to see Price take a broader view of a different federal amendment that protects health insurance plans that object to covering abortion. Essentially, Jones wants to see Price give religious employers, as well as insurers, the right to eliminate abortion coverage from the health plans they offer their workers.” [Business Insider, 12/9/16]

NWLC: The Weldon Amendment “Allows Health Care Entities – Including Hospitals, Health Insurance Plans, Individual Doctors And Nurses – To Refuse To Provide Abortion, Cover Abortion, Pay For Abortion, Or Refer For Abortion.” According to the National Women’s Law Center, “The Weldon Amendment is a federal law that has been attached to the annual federal spending bill for labor, health and human services, and education programs since 2005. It allows health care entities – including hospitals, health insurance plans, individual doctors and nurses – to refuse to provide abortion, cover abortion, pay for abortion, or refer for abortion. There are no provisions in the law to protect patient access to abortion services. If a state or local government wants to do something to protect women’s access to abortion, like pass a law requiring hospitals to provide referrals to women who need an abortion, the Weldon Amendment could be used to threaten the state with losing millions of dollars of federal funding. A patient’s health should always come first but the Weldon Amendment allows a provider’s religious beliefs to override a patient’s health needs.” [National Women’s Law Center, 8/31/17]

The HHS Secretary Could Cut Funding For Stem Cell And Contraceptive Research

Business Insider: The HHS Secretary “Could Curtail Federal Funding For Research On Embryonic Stem Cells And Contraception.” According to Business Insider, “As health secretary, for instance, Price could make it easier for employers or insurance plans to stop covering abortion and birth control. He could curtail federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells and contraception. And he, Pence, and Ryan could use their high-profile positions to raise awareness of the personhood movement.” [Business Insider, 12/9/16]

Politico: The HHS Secretary Could Cut Off Grants To Health Research, Which “Could Have A Long Influence On American Science And Medicine By Shifting The Direction Of Research Institutions Around The Country.” According to Politico, “HHS also spend billions each year offering research grants to scientists across the country through agencies like NIH, FDA and CDC. Each grant program is different and agency officials have discretion in how the programs are implemented, but technical changes can influence what medical issues get attention in the scientific world. ‘The area everybody overlooks is grant programs,’ said Rosenbaum. ‘You might find that a new administration would begin to attach all new kinds of conditions to grant awards.’ Reproductive health issues are always a controversial research topic, and those debates can spill over into policy areas at the agencies, even issues not directly related to abortion. ‘They could curtail other areas of research that are, in some way, linked politically to abortion, like fetal tissue research or human embryonic stem cell research,’ said Crane. An example came in 2001, when George W. Bush blocked funding for research on any new embryonic stem cells, to ensure no embryos would be destroyed for science; Obama later rolled the rule back. Changes in grant-making policies won’t suddenly affect the lives of everyday Americans, but they could have a long influence on American science and medicine by shifting the direction of research institutions around the country.” [Politico, 11/30/16]

Colorado Women Have Faced Three Ballot Initiatives And Two bills In  The State Legislature On “Personhood”

Colorado Rejected Three Personhood Amendment Ballot Measures From 2008 to 2014. According to the Denver Post, “Amendment 67, the anti-abortion proposal seeking to define ‘person’ and ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code as ‘unborn human beings,’ lost by a 2-1 margin. About 64 percent of voters said no to the third personhood measure to fail at the ballot since 2008.” [Denver Post, 11/4/14]

• 2008: Colorado Initiative 48 Lost 73.21% To 26.79%. According to Ballotpedia, “Colorado Initiative 48 (2008) No: 1,691,237 – 73.21% Yes: 618,779 26.79%.” [Ballotpedia, Accessed 9/19/17]
• Protect Families Protect Choice Spokeswoman Crystal Clinkenbeard Said, “Abortion Could Be Considered Murder, And A Woman Could Be Sent To Jail For Making The Difficult Life Decision To Terminate A Pregnancy.” According to the Washington Post, “And the amendment carries broader implications, critics say, such as limiting medical research involving embryos, inviting intrusive government oversight of pregnancies, and banning certain contraception, including the morning-after pill and the intrauterine device, or IUD. ‘If we give fertilized eggs legal rights, abortion could be considered murder and a woman could be sent to jail for making the difficult life decision to terminate a pregnancy,’ said Crystal Clinkenbeard, spokeswoman for Protect Families, Protect Choice, a coalition of medical professionals, community groups and religious leaders who oppose the amendment.” [Washington Post, 7/13/08]
• “The Measure (Initiative 48) Could Expand The Reach Of The Law Into Other Arenas, Legal Experts Say. […] If A Woman Miscarries, She Could Be Held Responsible.” According to the Washington Post, “The measure also could expand the reach of the law into other arenas, legal experts say. For instance, if a woman miscarries, she could be held responsible if it were found she caused it, even unintentionally. If she smoked or drank while pregnant, her behavior might be considered negligence. Damaged eggs might be eligible for monetary damages. The use of fertilized eggs at fertility clinics or in medical research labs would come into question because the disposal of unused eggs could be considered homicide.” [Washington Post, 7/13/08]
• 2010: Colorado Initiative 62 Lost 70.53% To 29.47%. According to Ballotpedia, “Colorado Initiative 62 (2010) No: 1,218,490 70.53% Yes: 509,062 29.74%.” [Ballotpedia, Accessed 9/19/17]
• Planned Parenthood Of The Rocky Mountains “The New Initiative Has The Same Goal [As Amendment 48], To Ban All Abortion Even In The Cases Of Rape, Incest, Or When The Life Of The Woman Is In Danger.” According to the Colorado Independent, “Monica McCafferty, media relations specialist for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said the slightly modified language does nothing to protect the rights and safety of mothers. ‘The new initiative has the same goal [as Amendment 48], to ban all abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the woman is in danger.’ McCafferty said that the language is vague and misleading but the ramifications are clear. ‘This would have huge implications.” [Colorado Independent, 10/27/09]
• NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado Executive Director Emilie Ailts “It Would Impact So Many Laws.’ She Said It Would Impact Not Only Fertilization And Stem Cell Research But Also Access To Many Forms Of Birth Control In The State.” According to the Colorado Independent, “Aits said that the initiative would change the Colorado Constitution in 20,000 different places. ‘People can not even prognosticate how once it was fully implemented how it would affect peoples lives. It would impact so many laws.’ She said it would impact not only fertilization and stem cell research but also access to many forms of birth control in the state.” [Colorado Independent, 10/27/09]
• 2014: Colorado Amendment 67 Lost 64.87% To 35.13%. According to Ballotpedia, “Colorado Amendment 67 No: 1,297,299 64.87% Yes: 702,544 35.12%.” [Ballotpedia, Accessed 9/19/17]
• No Personhood Committee Called Amendment 67 “The Measure Would Make Any Abortion A Crime.” According an archived No Personhood Issue Committee website, “Why Amendment 67 Goes Too Far: The measure would make any abortion a crime, would make pregnant women and health care providers criminally and civilly liable for any pregnancy that does not result in a live birth, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.” [No Personhood Issue Committee, Accessed 9/20/17]
• No Personhood Committee Claimed, “It (67) Would Also Outlaw Any Birth Control Options Like The Pill, IUDs And Emergency Contraception” According an archived No Personhood Issue Committee website, “How Amendment 67 puts the Government into Our Personal Private Lives: It would also outlaw any birth control options like the Pill, IUDs and emergency contraception, as they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.” [No Personhood Issue Committee, Accessed 9/20/17]
• No Personhood Committee: “Any Doctor Who Performs An Abortion Could Be Put In Jail. Any Woman Who Suffers A Miscarriage Could Be Investigated For Manslaughter.” According to the No Personhood Issue Committee, “Any doctor who performs an abortion could be put in jail.

 Any woman who suffers a miscarriage could be investigated for manslaughter. Any doctor who treats her could be investigated and charged as well.” [No Personhood Issue Committee, Accessed 9/20/17]

2015: Colorado Personhood Bill Introduced After “Gruesome Attack On A Pregnant Woman.” According to the Huffington Post, “After a gruesome attack on a pregnant woman in March, Republican state lawmakers in Colorado have introduced a bill to permit murder charges against a person who causes a pregnant woman’s fetus to die at any stage of its development. Colorado Senate Bill 258 [268], offered Tuesday by Senate President Bill Cadman (R), contains language similar to fetal personhood measures that Colorado voters have rejected three times. The legislation ‘defines ‘person’ for the purposes of homicide and assault offenses as a human being and includes an unborn child at every stage of gestation from conception until live birth.’ Cadman drafted the bill a month after Dynel Catrece Lane, 34, stabbed Michelle Wilkins and cut the 7-month-old fetus out of her womb. Wilkins, 26, survived, but her baby did not. Boulder County District Attorney Stanley Garnett has filed eight felony charges against Lane, including attempted murder, first-degree assault and unlawful termination of a pregnancy. But he said he could not file murder charges because the baby never lived outside the womb.” [Huffington Post, 4/15/15]

House Bill 1108 Would Have Made Abortion A “Class 1 Felony” “Would Put Practitioners […] In The Same Category As First-Degree Murderers, Child Abusers Who Cause A Child’s Death And People Charged With Treason.” According to ABC Denver 7, “One bill, House Bill 1108, would make it a class 1 felony for practitioners to perform an abortion unless it is intended to save the mother’s life or unless the unborn child dies as a result of medical treatment, such as chemotherapy. That would put practitioners who perform abortions in the same category as first-degree murderers, child abusers who cause a child’s death and people charged with treason.” [ABC Denver 7, 1/27/17]

• Colorado House Bill 1108 Defined “Unborn Life” As “At Conception,” According to the Denver Post, “The third measure, House Bill 1108, echoes the ‘personhood’ movement, which Colorado voters have rejected three times at the ballot box. The bill would have made it a felony for a physician to take an ‘unborn life,’ defined as beginning at conception. It contains exceptions for cases in which a pregnant woman’s life is in danger.” [Denver Post, 2/9/17]

Women In Mississippi Faced A “Personhood” Ballot Initiative, As Well As A Bill In The State House

Mississippi Initiative 26: Defeated 58% To 42%. According to the Associated Press, “November 9, 2011, 07:14PM ET, Initiative – 26 – Definition of Person – Ballot Issue, Person at Fertilization, Total Precincts: 1844/1876. Yes: 346,669 – 42%, No: 476,178 – 58%.” [Associated Press, Accessed 9/19/17]

• Initiative 26 Could Have Banned “Any Birth Control Method That Theoretically Allows Sperm And Egg To Meet Could Be Outlawed.” According to NBC News, “Proposition 26, Mississippi’s anti-abortion amendment, pushes legal personhood back to the moment of fertilization, a point that is not generally medically detectable. Proponents of the new law saw that it will not ban the use of hormonal contraceptives. However, “Yes on 26” members also write on their website that the group is opposed to birth control methods, “which act to prevent implantation of the newly formed human into the lining of the womb.” They include in this category some forms of the pill and other hormonal drugs, as well as IUDs. In fact, Gilboa said, if 26 defines personhood from the moment when sperm meets egg, any birth control method that theoretically allows sperm and egg to meet could be outlawed. [Read: 7 Surprising Facts About the Pill ] [NBC News, 11/7/11]
• Mississippi State Medical Association: “Common Procedures We Use Now Could Be Interpreted As Murder.” According to Ballotpedia, “The Mississippi State Medical Association’s statement on 26 says that they were unable to support it because ‘The common procedures we use now could be interpreted as murder or wrongful death if Proposal 26 passes. This justifiably will limit the physician’s options and deter use of common lifesaving procedures.’[29]” [Ballotpedia, 9/20/17]

HB 1309 Would Have “Classified Unborn Fetuses As Persons At The Moment Of Conception/Fertilization, Rather Than Birth.” According to the ACLU of Mississippi’s 2015 Legislative Score Card, “HB 1309 sought to classify unborn fetuses as persons at the moment of conception/fertilization, rather than birth. Died in Committee” [ACLU of Mississippi, Accessed 9/20/17]

• 2/3/15: HB 1309 “Died In Committee.” According to the Mississippi State Legislature, “History of Actions: 1 01/19 (H) Referred To Judiciary B, 2  02/03 (H) Died In Committee” [Mississippi State Legislature, Accessed 9/19/17]

Women In Virginia Faced A “Personhood” Bill In The State House

The 2012 Personhood Bill In Virginia Provided That “Unborn Children At Every Stage Of Development Enjoy All The Rights, Privileges, And Immunities Available To Other Persons, Citizens, And Residents Of The Commonwealth.” According to the Washington Post, “The bill provides that ‘unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the commonwealth, subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the commonwealth.’” [Washington Post, 2/13/12]

• Bob Marshall Claimed The Bill Would Not Affect Birth Control, Miscarriages, Or Abortions But Would Help parents Receive Damages For The Death Of A Fetus In Wrongful Death Suit. According to the Washington Post, “Marshall said his bill, modeled after legislation in Missouri, would not affect birth control, miscarriages or abortions but would affect the way that courts define a person. For example, parents could receive damages for the death of a fetus in a wrongful death lawsuit.” [Washington Post, 2/13/12]
• Opponents Claimed The Bill Would Open “Families And Doctors To A Wide Variety Of Criminal And Civil Lawsuits For Health-Care Decisions Not Only In Cases Of Unwanted Pregnancies, But Every Pregnancy And Even Miscarriage.” According to the Washington Post, “‘This bill requires every single code section in Virginia that uses the word ‘person’ to apply to a fetus,’ Del. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond) said. ‘That opens families and doctors to a wide variety of criminal and civil lawsuits for health-care decisions not only in cases of unwanted pregnancies, but every pregnancy and even miscarriage.’” [Washington Post, 2/13/12]

The Guttmacher Institute Called The Bill A “Backdoor Approach” To Abortion Restrictions. According to CNN, “Women’s rights advocates say these legislative and ballot efforts around the country to establish fetal personhood are part of a move to place greater restrictions on women’s access to abortion. ‘Over the past several years, we’ve seen more and more attempts to restrict abortion directly,’ said Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that describes itself as advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights through research and policy analysis. ‘These efforts around redefining ‘person’ are a little more of a back door approach, because they don’t use the term abortion. They’re not an outright abortion ban. Instead they’re using a less obvious approach in a way that does not exactly indicate exactly how far they go.’” [CNN, 2/19/12]

The American Congress Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists Opposed Personhood Measures “In Part Because Of Their Implications For Treatment Of Ectopic Pregnancies.” According to the Virginian-Pilot, “The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes ‘personhood’ measures, in part because of their implications for treatment of ectopic pregnancies. Doctors at fertility clinics are also concerned that the legislation could complicate their work with infertile couples – despite a provision in the bill saying that it doesn’t apply to ‘lawful assisted conception.’ ‘The unintended consequences of this legislation, I think, are quite dangerous,’ said Dr. Albert Hsu, an obstetrician in Norfolk and a trainee at the Jones Institute. If it becomes law, designating embryos as human beings, Hsu said, it could encourage patients to demand that all embryos be transplanted during their in-vitro fertilization procedures.” [Virginian-Pilot, 2/16/12]

The American Society For Reproductive Medicine Said The Bill Thwarted “The Ability Of Those Who Suffer From Infertility To Seek Treatment Appropriate For Their Disease.” According to the Virginian-Pilot, “In a letter to senators this week opposing the ‘personhood’ bill, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine said it ‘not only threatens the reproductive rights of women, it also thwarts the ability of those who suffer from infertility to seek treatment appropriate for their disease.’ The society says that the exemption in the bill for assisted conception is too vaguely worded.” [Virginian-Pilot, 2/16/12]