Kristie McNealy, MD

On Monday, February 25th, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee announced his backing of the Colorado Human Life Amendment, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in the state of Colorado. This proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution would extend rights to embryos, and is intended to send a message about the sanctity of human life. The amendment poses a number of problems for women seeking abortions, as well as for women using hormone-based contraception and couples using in vitro fertilization. The group Colorado for Equal Rights is advocating for the proposal, while it is opposed by Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. At this point, the Colorado Human Life Amendment is only a proposed November 2008 ballot initiative, and more signatures are still required to bring it up for a vote.

The first time I heard about this bill, the first thought that entered my mind was the fact that if embryos are people, then all of those frozen embryos couples have saved after going through IVF cycles are tiny frozen people. But, if they’re people, what do we do with them? It hardly seems right to keep “people” in a deep freeze, yet thawing them out would be akin to killing them. What would the charge be for tossing out unwanted embryos – neglect, reckless endangerment, perhaps murder? Would it even be possible for fertility clinics to make embryos anymore?

Then there’s the whole birth control pill debate. There are staunch pro-life supporters who feel the use of the birth control pill is wrong, because if an egg manages to become fertilized while a woman is on the pill, the pill may prevent the resulting embryo from implanting, thus resulting in an “abortion”. Would this act be grounds for making birth control pills, or other types of hormonal birth control that affect implantation, illegal?

There are a million other questions swimming around in my head, surrounding issues like early pregnancy loss, abortion, resuscitation for extremely preterm babies, and countless other things that could potentially be impacted by this law. I understand the message supporters of this amendment want to deliver, but I wonder if the average supporter on the street has really considered all of the longterm implications.

What do you think?

Similar Posts:

• The Pill Reduces Ovarian Cancer Risk for 30 Years
• Octuplet Birth Raises Ethical Questions and Public Outrage
• IUDs, Not Just for Birth Control Anymore
• Cloned Embryos Made from Adult Cells