Nevada Judge Rules Fetal Personhood Initiative Misleading To Voters

WASHINGTON -- Nevada's anti-abortion movement experienced a setback on Monday when a district judge ruled that a new fetal personhood ballot measure -- similar to the high-profile measure that recently failed in Mississippi -- is misleading to voters. The judge rewrote the initiative to include all of its potential effects on birth control, in vitro fertilization, treatment for ectopic pregnancies and stem cell research.

The personhood initiative, filed by the Nevada Prolife Coalition, would amend the state constitution to protect "the unalienable right to life of every prenatal person" at all stages of biological development. Nevada law requires that all initiatives be accompanied by an explanation of their effects to help voters make informed decisions, but Nevada Prolife Coalition's official explanation of the measure only discusses its effects on the legality of abortion.

Legal medical and legal experts have said granting fertilized egg legal personhood could have far-reaching legal consequences even beyond women's health and reproductive rights. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the Nevada personhood measure in October, charging that it was misleading to voters because it did not list the measure's full ramifications.

"Nevadans deserve to know that this initiative seeks to outlaw women’s health services like abortion, the birth control pill and treatment for complicated pregnancies, just to name a few," Elisa Cafferata, president and CEO of Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, said in a statement. "Nearly 20 years ago Nevada voters affirmed the tenets of Roe vs. Wade and a woman’s right to privacy. Nevadans do not support interfering in women’s personal and private decision making."

Keith Mason, the president of Personhood USA, the national group behind the Nevada initiative, said Planned Parenthood's statements about the effects of the initiative were not true.

"It only affects those procedures in as much as they kill an innocent person; it does not ban those things at all," he said.

Nevada District Judge James E. Wilson sided with the plaintiffs on Monday, determining that Nevada Prolife Coalition's description of effect "is inadequate" to inform voters. He did not rule the measure illegal, but he ordered Nevada Prolife Coalition to substitute the following language into the initiative before it starts collecting signatures:

The initiative would protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman’s health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the “pill;” and to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and others.

The Nevada Prolife Coalition has to collect 72,352 valid signatures by June to get the measure on next year's ballot. Similar amendments are being pushed in nearly a dozen other states -- including Georgia, Virginia and Florida -- for the 2012 election. Republican lawmakers in Congress have also introduced three similar personhood bills on a federal level.

"What this amounts to is the judge forcing us to carry the opponents' talking points in the summary of the bill," Personhood USA's Mason said. "We do not agree with that at all, and we're making the decision of whether to refile the measure with new language or appeal to the Supreme Court."

Comments

[anthonybrown]

07:29 PM on 12/28/2011

I could not reply to your comment, so I will try here. I am no student of Catholic history, but my rudimentary understanding of it suggests plenty of support for violence. On that point, we agree. But I NEVER suggested otherwise. While it may be convenient for you to suggest I did, I did not.

I repeat: Catholic leaders across the globe called for the United States to not go to war. Democratic leaders supported it. You may speak about the Republican lies, but the Catholic leaders STILL spoke out against the war, long before it began. The Democrats voted for it.

I am not familiar with Thomas Aquinas, but I do know he lived many centuries ago. The Catholic leadership today is outspoken in their call for the abolition of the death penalty. The Democratic Party supports it.

The Catholic bishops in America have called again and again, in an increase for funding in American social programs. The Democrats just proposed a "budget compromise" that rips apart the social net for our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.

Kindly tell me, which of these statements is wrong?

[Goldshield]

09:56 AM on 12/28/2011

I read the reply's to the abortion issue and it amazes me how the liberals justify the killing of an innocent human being, they along with a liberal Supreme Court put ideology first in justifying the killing of an innocent human being. The Mother rights as defined by the liberal views trump the Zygote rights to life.

This analogy of a "Woman's Right to Choose" trumps the Zygote's Right to Life" is an example of a corrupt supreme Court that's using it power to write law as oppose to interpreting law.

The Decision given by the Supreme Court that created this illegal right of a "Woman right to Choose" was not a decision based upon law but ideology. Norma McCorvey who was the Jane Roe of "Roe vs Wade" was made up story by manipulative lawyers to fabricate a case of being raped when she wasn't.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0474_Roe__v._Wade.html

The zygote which is the subject of the lawsuits is an individual human being with inherited rights under the constitution. A zygote DNA is different from the mothers or the fathers and as such should be defined as an individual human being with protected rights under our constitution, but we have a supreme court where liberal judges legislate law as opposed to interpreting law have illegally ruled otherwise, they and should be impeached and removed from the court.

[ChaCubed]

07:15 PM on 12/24/2011

Oh no! What will happen to all the little plastic baby dolls now?

[pappyvet]

02:48 PM on 12/24/2011

If a Fetus with all that it lacks is a "person" then wouldnt a dog who is smarter than any fetus , be much more so?

[anthonybrown]

08:05 AM on 12/23/2011

In the entire history of recorded science, NOT ONCE has a non-human being turned into a human being by getting older and bigger. NEVER.

[ChaCubed]

07:24 AM on 12/25/2011

It's always interesting to read what an anti-abortionist thinks is profound.

[goatini]

07:07 PM on 12/25/2011

Not to mention what they think is "science". Already your fan, faved your post.

[anthonybrown]

09:21 AM on 12/28/2011

Not profound. Just biological science. Chec

[davearnold007]

06:41 PM on 12/28/2011

NOT ONCE in recorded human history has anyone ever understood biochemistry without going to college, and studying biochemistry.

I bet you don't even know that planes fly because god says they can. But can you prove it?

Or that the sky is blue because god says it should be blue. Can you disprove it?

Or that this entire conversation borders on being unworthy of Huffpost. Are we really going to play with the uninformed minds of the neanderthals who pretend to have come from a special place in space put here by a magic jebus daddy?

[anthonybrown]

07:18 PM on 12/28/2011

Who are you addressing? I am not a religious person. I don't think anything I typed suggests that I am.

I am taking issue with the following assertion: "Non-human beings turn into human beings by getting older and bigger." I am not a doctor, but I did take some college biology, and my disagreement is established scientific FACT. Regardless, if you show me a human biology book that DOES say that non-human beings become human beings by getting older and bigger, I will reconsider my position.

I still have no clue what that has to do with religion.

[Periadoc]

03:10 AM on 12/23/2011

If a Fetus is a Living person. Shouldnt we have them Buried if the pregnancy ends to soon? If the Woman could be Charged with Murder/manslaughter for having a misscarrige at least there should be a grave for the "victim". (This i sick logic)

[PWM]

10:47 AM on 12/28/2011

Well, under such laws every case of miscarriage, false pregnancy, stillbirth, and accusation of abortion will require a police investigation and a forced physical examination of the woman. It will not be unlike the military virgin testing in Egypt.

[anthonybrown]

10:48 AM on 12/29/2011

Thanks for your reply to my reply. I was unable to reply there (three uses of the word "reply" out of twelve words).

I was wondering if your logic suggests that in a country that DOES supply sex education and birth control, if that society therefore is absolved of any responsibility in the event of an unplanned pregnancy?

Furthermore, if it is a society's obligation to provide for children resulting from unwanted pregnancy for not providing education and birth control,, does the same logic apply to mothers? That is, if you are placing a burden upon voters who did not vote for the pro-family planning candidate, would you therefore place a burden upon a woman who knowing chose to engage in sex without birth control, despite knowing what a condom was and what it does?

[iamone3]

01:12 PM on 12/22/2011

If you are truly pro-choice, support the women that choose life.

[ChaCubed]

07:24 PM on 12/24/2011

You are addressing that to the wrong group. Most pro-choice people are liberals and most liberals support government assistance programs for mothers and children and families which include fathers who need assistance.

Anti-abortionists are the ones who want every fetus to be carried to term and don't want their tax dollars going to support the resulting child or the mother and/or father who gives them a home and needs assistance.

[iamone3]

10:18 PM on 12/24/2011

I expect people to put their own money where their mouth is, not other peoples money.

[anthonybrown]

05:12 PM on 12/28/2011

Not the Catholic Church. Their leaders have called for more public assistance to the poor. The leaders of the Democratic Party just proposed a budget package slashing public assistance to the poor.

[l78lancer]

10:56 PM on 12/20/2011

So the defendants are put off because they want to collect signatures based on incomplete information.

Even if it supports your position, a lie through omission is still a lie.

[aquilegia]

10:51 PM on 12/20/2011

Bravo, judge!!!

Thank you.

Voters, and the general public, DO have the right to know the full effect of any measure.

[Frickett]

08:02 PM on 12/20/2011

Since they're going to be closely monitoring every pregnancy in the state, what's the next step? Testing to see if the fetus is gay? Liberal? Carried to its logical extreme, it's not hard to imagine eugenics is next. Oh, brave new world, that has such nitwits in it.

[anthonybrown]

08:28 AM on 12/23/2011

We are already doing eugenics. Aborting your daughter who isn't perfect. Aborting your daughter because she does not come to term the exact week of your life you had set aside for becoming a mother. Aborting your daughter because you "really, really, really wanted a boy."

[Frickett]

12:47 PM on 12/23/2011

According to several OB-Gyn docs I know, this happens a lot in the Chinese populations in the US, in order to guarantee a son, and to make sure that son is born under the most auspicious sign possible, they demand a C-section on a specific day, and at a specific time if they can get it, even if a C-section is not medically necessary. It's a dilemma for docs -- medicine weighed against culture.

But that's not what I was referring to. I was more pointing out what happens when idiotic policies are taken to their logical extreme.

[Binea]

07:14 PM on 12/20/2011

If all that the judge said is true,then YES,I agree with him/her.Voters need to know Everything about it before voting. I'm sick of politicians and others sneaking carp in..BE HONEST.

I'm very much for defining the baby in the womb as the living human being he/she is,even at embryo stage of life.But< I do strongly disagree with forcing a woman to end her own life by carrying a baby to term..no law can make that choice.
To outlaw the pill is also wrong..since it doesn't end life just prevents it from starting. so that is simply a religious battle.

[synergie]

12:04 AM on 12/21/2011

It is true, and honesty has never been a consideration in the anti-choice movement. It makes their cause rather ridiculous and would force them to support policies that they don't like. The simplest way to reduce abortion in this country? Provide support to pregnant women during the pregnancy and afterwards, health, food, financial aid etc. When 45% of people are stating that they're choosing an abortion because they can't afford to be pregnant, or support their families or another baby, this simple fix would do it. But that's against their politics, so they produce the abortion porn and start screaming hysterically about nonsensical things.

[Binea]

02:24 PM on 12/21/2011

I agree with helping those who can not help themselves.I was pregnant at 15 ,myself,and had my son ,I raised him too.I would NOT have been able to keep him
( I'd have had to give him up for adoption) if it were not for the help from Welfare.
But,to say that children should NOT be born because of economic considerations,is Vile.Evil.

[sheahananne2]

08:44 PM on 12/21/2011

I agree with everything you have stated herein; however, I believe the simplest way to reduce abortion in this country is by providing actual sex education in the schools. Mississippi's sex education program? Abstinence - that's it and that's all. Now, Mississippi has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country, the highest infant mortality rate in the country, and the lowest educational ranking (you guessed it) in the country. I don't know about anyone else, but as a resident of Mississippi I can honestly surmise that the whole abstinence thing ain't workin'! Just saying...

[Maisey01]

11:24 AM on 12/21/2011

I couldn't agree with you more. The most innocent are suffering because their mothers are selfish human beings who will one day answer to a higher power. ANYONE who has seen a real video of a baby being aborted would never be able to do something like that and live with themselves. Babies being carried in their mothers womb are as innocent as it gets! Women who have abortions defend it with such ferocity, because they are really trying to make themselves feel better for killing their own flesh and blood. I am glad that I will never have to deal with that kind of guilt.

[ChaCubed]

07:29 PM on 12/24/2011

I've always been bothered that we use the word "mother" for a female who is pregnant but doesn't give birth. No one is considered a mother if she doesn't have a live birth, but we continue to refer to pregnant females as "mothers". It's odd.

[goatini]

05:14 PM on 12/21/2011

FLAGGED for deliberate dissemination of malicious misinformation.

[Frickett]

06:33 PM on 12/20/2011

The issue isn't THAT kid. A heartwarming "there but for the grace, etc,." story can almost always be woven out of the threads of tragedy. But this isn't about THAT kid. That decision has been made, that boat has sailed, that train has left the station, and best of British luck to them. But there are hundreds if not thousands of choices about procreation made every day by all kinds of people. Some happy choices, some sad choices, some easy, some hard.

The State has and should have no authority whatsoever to deny anyone the right to decide what family they will or won't have, how many kids or none, or how they go about preventing or terminating pregnancy.

[surferlaments]

05:08 PM on 12/20/2011

genocide.... that's all, genocide.

[HawaiiSteve]

05:55 PM on 12/20/2011

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." Please explain how abortion fits this definition? What ethnic, racial, religious, or national group is being destroyed?

[surferlaments]

06:16 PM on 12/20/2011

when i was a single parent, raising my son, i was coming back from the laundomat and was unloading my son, and the laundry basket from my car. a homeless man was walking towards me. i said hello to him, and he turned his head in my direction and said, genocide, that 's all... genocide. i always remebered that and that man. i felt it was appropriate to repeat his words here. although i know the meaning of the word genocide... i can apply it to the abortion of a fetus. concluding, that if the fetus was allowed to birth, it would be a race, maybe religious or part of a national group eventually. evenso, i think you got my point hawaiisteve.

[Binea]

07:19 PM on 12/20/2011

Read This,then do some more research. There has been a decades long move to wipe out races or keep their numbers down.

http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0306/university_of_cambridge_eugenics.htm

[Frickett]

06:19 PM on 12/20/2011

You might want to look up the definition of genocide if you would like to be taken seriously.

[surferlaments]

07:06 PM on 12/20/2011

to be quite honest with you.... i don't care if i am taken seriously. especially, on huffpost. i have read other's comments, and i just express my opinion as you do and they do. for me, my life will go on with or without huffposters taking me seriously.

[anthonybrown]

05:14 PM on 12/28/2011

It was Jesse Jackson who first describe abortion as "Black genocide" given that is disproportionately done to African-American women. Of course, this was before he decided to run for the Democratic presidential nomination. So strange that none of the Mitt Romney bashers call Jesse Jackson as "flip-flopper."

[K August]

04:06 PM on 12/20/2011

Remember folks.....these are the same people who have no problem sending our kids into war to take others peoples lives away.

[aquilegia]

04:36 AM on 12/21/2011

Agreed! They are also the same people who de-fund every child welfare program imaginable, from Head Start to school lunches to medical services for low-income kids.

We need to take better care of the kids who are already here!

That would be the most honest way to start expressing caring and love for children.

These folks don't love kids, they only love fetuses, and backward patriarchal, mythical "Leave It To Beaver" "families."

[anthonybrown]

05:15 PM on 12/28/2011

The Catholic Church leadership has called for increased social programs for those in poverty. The Democratic Party leadership has called for those programs to be slashed in the name of "compromise." Perhaps you should be calling them out instead.

[anthonybrown]

08:33 AM on 12/23/2011

Actually, they're not. Many of them of Catholics who are part of a church that spoke out against war in Iraq for well over a year before it began, while the Democrats were voting to support it.

[synergie]

06:32 PM on 12/23/2011

Actually they are. Many of those "Catholics" were voting and supporting both the administration that got us into that war, and the supposed Democrats you blame for supporting it (who were also lied to, by the Church approved administration.)

So, nice try at rewriting history by conflating a bunch of completely unrelated, and erroneous points, but sorry, it doesn't wok that way.