How PersonhoodUSA Will Hurt All Pregnant Women

PersonhoodUSA apparently sees itself as the new, hipper, more effective incarnation of the anti-abortion movement. PersonhoodUSA hopes that by establishing the "pre-born, as legal persons with protection under the law" it will end the "injustice of abortion." Its attempt to do this last November through a "personhood" ballot measure in Colorado's failed miserably. Nevertheless, PersonhoodUSA, is committed to "working tirelessly to establish personhood in every State."

What supporters of this approach don't mention is that if the unborn have legal personhood rights, pregnant women won't. There is really no way around this. As National Advocates for Pregnant Women's video demonstrates, if successful, this strategy will mean that upon become pregnant, women will lose their civil and human rights.

As Angela Carder learned it is not just life vs. choice - but life vs. life. Angela Carder, 25 weeks pregnant, was critically ill. More than anything, she wanted to live. A court, however, ordered cesarean surgery based on claims of fetal rights. The surgery was performed over her objections as well as those of her physicians and family. Angela Carder died two days later - the cesarean surgery listed as a contributing factor. The fetus was born alive but died within two hours.

PersonhoodUSA doesn't address how personhood laws will affect women like Ms. Carder and others who have no intention of ending a pregnancy. Perhaps this is why legislators in at least five states have introduced bills that carry their message and several more are working on ballot measures like the one in Colorado.

In fact, North Dakota's house recently passed a personhood bill that would require the state to interpret all of the state's laws to apply to "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" including a fertilized egg. In addition to inviting such facetious Onion-like headlines as "North Dakota House Passes 'Homo' Rights Law, this bill creates the basis for policing all pregnant women.

Upon becoming pregnant, women would lose their right to medical privacy, since under North Dakota law doctors are required to report to child welfare authorities whenever they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child (an organism) is abused or neglected. Accordingly, if this bill passes, pregnant women in North Dakota who are obese, have diabetes, or smoke should probably report directly to child welfare authorities - or perhaps some new agency, such as the Department of Organism Protection.

Indeed, a recent horrifying incident in California could become commonplace in North Dakota. A pregnant woman in California experienced a miscarriage at one-month gestation. Her doctor advised her to preserve the embryonic tissue in the freezer until she and her husband decided whether to request genetic testing or to take the remains to a mortuary. When they decided against testing, they called a mortuary. They were asked for a death certificate and were directed to the County Coroner to obtain one. The Coroner instructed them to call the police. When they complied, the police heard the words "human remains" and responded by descending on their home, entering without a warrant, and searching for what they assumed was the evidence of a crime against a person.

While the California case reflects miscommunication, families that experience miscarriages would have to expect such intrusions in states that pass personhood laws. Similarly pregnant women who miss prenatal care appointments, don't take prenatal vitamins, or drink any amount of alcohol could be deemed abusive under criminal child [organism] abuse and endangerment laws. Personhood laws would also provide the basis for prosecuting women for murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide if they suffered miscarriages or stillbirths.

In fact states with these laws would look a lot like South Carolina, the only state that has, by judicial fiat, effectively adopted a personhood law. More than 90 pregnant women and new mothers have been arrested there based on fetal personhood claims. Recently, a pregnant woman in South Carolina fell from a 5th floor window. The press reported this incident as a suicide attempt. She survived but suffered a stillbirth as a result of the fall. Last month she was arrested on charges of homicide by child abuse and is still being held without bail.

PersonhoodUSA asserts that "each and every human being must be respected and protected from fertilization until natural death." Their legislation, however, would have the effect of excluding pregnant women from this protection. People committed to a true culture of life need to oppose their legislative proposals, supporting instead ones that include the interests of the women who give that life.

Comments

[Zahavti]

Ms. Paltrow is correct to view fetal rights laws as harmful. I am opposed to abortion; yet, when I think through the legal ramifications, it becomes clear that fetal personhood laws potentially harm or affect all women.

If we were discussing any person, he or she is accountable for neglect or injury to another. It would be logical to restrain pregnant women's behavior or hold them liable based on the perceived legal rights of the fetus. It is not a scare tactic to present cases when this has occurred.

The fetus has value and consideration; however, what I find problematic is that the rights of the fetus are actually being placed above those of the woman, and her own life, health, and medical autonomy being wholly disregarded.

[Raptarrin]

Your article gave me a brilliant idea for a 1984-ish book.

I think abortions are often undertaken too casually in this country, but that doesn't mean the opposite extreme wouldn't be worse.

I think an unborn baby is entitled to certain rights and is more than a lump of tissue, but it is not right to treat said baby as somehow more important than the mother. And it is true that Pro-life people often have too little concern for the baby after it is born, and too little concern for the rights of women in these situations.

[GovtCheese]

So does this mean that each time a man and woman have sex, then the woman most report this activity to the Office of Personhood Affairs, so that she can be monitored just in case fertilization takes place.

[unnecesarean]

I feel concerned that many of the commenters below are missing the big picture in a few ways.

The question is: Are you ok with court-ordered and coerced c-sections?

As a woman who was bullied in her last trimester of her first pregnancy and in the delivery room by a midwife and several doctors because they thought the baby would be too big to deliver normally without injury or death, I want to know if you think it would have been an appropriate course of action for the doctors to call a judge and get a court order for an unnecessary c-section against my wishes and judgment? This is not just a rhetorical question or an impossible extreme—co­urt-ordere­d c-sections happen! Google it. Paltrow is not an alarmist.

I’m white, middle-class and had access to medical journals. I called them on their BS and lack of evidence. What happens to women who don’t have access, privilege or English language skills? Forced surgery? A CPS call?

In the Personhood scenario, if doctors have any reason to believe that they could be held liable for injury to the baby at birth AND if they either believe that a c-section is a) safer or b) will demonstrate that they did *something*, they will be justified in getting a court order.

Frankly, I don’t think doctors would feel comfortable with this scenario and they are the authority to which many appeal. Why should they bear this responsibility?

[Yamunation]

This article shows a lot of foresight, and what will inevitably happen if this law takes effect.

I am scared our country, which we like to beat our chest and claim is so free, is heading in the direction of the conservative Middle Eastern countries we like to say has no women's rights.

It's insane that these folks think a woman, who is a wife, and say, mother of another two children, is not worth living, so long as her embryo becomes a person. They are willing to allow this mother to die, deprive her children of a mother, deprive her husband of a wife, deprive her parents of a daughter, and lose her own life, so that tissue can eventually become a person, and live a life with no mother.

Nice definition of 'life.'

And I've yet to see one pro-lifer give a hoot about a baby after he or she is born. THey don't want to throw away the unborn, but they're pretty worrie-free about throwing away the born.

[JimMan35]

Then we'll have to have funerals for every miscarriage and we'll have to start counting fetuses as dependents and getting tax deductions upon conception.

[LeftRight]

So when would you celebrate birthdays???

[valkyrie607]

I had sex. The condom broke. I went to clinic and got Plan B. It worked--I menstruated.

I wonder if that egg was fertilized... If so, I'm guilty of murder. Throw me in jail!

Now there's a culture of life for you.

[Gill Lyter]

well actually Plan B prevents ovulation. It will not abort a fertilized fetus, nor will it harm the fetus.

[btaylor]

I look forward to the day when every American is granted the right to life, regardless of his or her size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency.

Lynn, you once weighed less than 10 pounds, could not speak, needed to be kept warm and dry, and could not feed yourself, right? You were a human being; but you were a different size, you weren't as physically or mentally developed as you are now, you needed someone to make sure you were fed and had clean diapers, and you probably lived in a different house than the one you live in now.

Okay, now let's go back to 20 weeks gestation. You were a little smaller, you weren't as physically or mentally developed, you lived in a different place, and you may or may not have been able to live outside your mother's womb with a vast amount of medical care. But, were you not still Lynn? Did not every human being who has ever lived go through that same stage of life?

Now let's look at YOU at 11 weeks gestation. Wow! All your body systems were functioning!

At six weeks, you responded to touch; at 40 days, you had brain waves.

Your heart was beating at 18 days!

That human being was YOU... All you needed was a mom who cared enough to let you live and welcome you into the world at the time of your birth. Did you not deserve that chance?

[GovtCheese]

So from your post I can assume that you are actively involved in advocating for the health and well being for foster children.

Because there are plenty of human beings looking for a person who cares enough not just to let them be born but clothe, feed, shelter, educate, etc...

[btaylor]

And, your point is...?

Surely, you would not suggest that because these children need clothing, food, shelter, etc., they would have been better off dead?

[SurrealPumpkin]

Slight problem, you can't have two "people" sharing one body and still grant equal rights to both. It doesn't work.

[btaylor]

Sure it does... LIFE is WIN / WIN.

It's only when one person is forced to die that someone loses.

And, for the record, a former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop (a pediatric surgeon, BTW), testified that there is NEVER a case in which taking the life of an unborn baby will save the life of his or her mother.

[SurrealPumpkin]

Don't the kids living in Darfur deserve the chance?

[Kyradical]

then you carry all the unwanted pregnancies to birth. knock yourself out. i carried two babies-wanted- to term, and i intend to protect both of their reproductive rights with every breath i have.

[LeftRight]

And any of that overrides the rights of the other person in the same body??? The fact of the matter is that a pregnant woman is a unique situation where two beings occupy the same body. Many times this isn't an issue, since the woman wants the baby, but if she doesn't her rights STILL take precedence because she's the only PERSON present!!

[btaylor]

I replied with thoughtful, well-written responses to everyone who addressed my comment; I would like to know why some of my replies (one of which follows) were not posted. Could it be they were too informed and truthful?


I find it interesting that in one sentence, you refer to the baby in the womb as a “being”, but in the very next sentence, you imply he or she is not a person.

We are talking about tiny humans who cannot speak for themselves, not evil monsters set out to destroy lives.

But, let’s compare the numbers:

Lynn researched and was able to find 3 cases that MIGHT HAVE BEEN examples of how personhood laws could negatively affect the other person involved. Since 1973, American women have legally aborted 50,000,000 (fifty million) precious, innocent human beings. I respectfully ask, which group's rights have been trampled?

You and I are victims of the culture of death. Yes, we escaped abortion; but we have been desensitized and brainwashed by the very vocal minority who would have applauded our moms for paying to have us murdered before we ever saw the light of day.

Believe it or not, taking the life of one's own flesh and blood is not in the best interest of any mother. And, that is what a woman becomes as soon as she becomes pregnant: a mother. Abortion not only makes her the mother of a dead baby, it leaves her with a scar that will never completely heal.

[Skepticat]

What this fiction of personhood does is turn women into passive incubators while outside meddlers direct their lives for them. You already have places like that Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind - you don't need any more. After personhood what's next - enforced special diets and confinement so Rosemary's baby will be a suitable specimen. If a blastula of cells is miscarried is Rosemary jailed for murder.

[goodneighbor420]

welcome to the machine.....

[NobodylikesHim]

So based on this type of argument, doesn't it stand that if "personhood" rights start at conception, than in order to insure that "everyone's" rights are protected, PersonhoodUSA should also advocate for birth control? Thereby not placing pregnant women in a position to have to choose abortion, and violating the law.
The percentage of Americans who are fervent anti-abortion, are also usually conservative, and I don't quite get how they reconcile in their own minds, telling other people what they have to do, and at the same time saying that government needs to stay out of their life, to let them be free so they can do what they want.

Is this known as a circular argument?

[propitiousmoment]

Nope, it's called a contradiction.

[ailbhe]

This is frightening, thank God Obama is President, I hope he will stamp this out.

It is grossly offensive to compare a fertilised egg as of equal or superior worth (and Catholic's believe it to be superior) to a woman! There is nothing more contemptuous of life than that.

This nonsense comes from religious ideology, religionists should be prevented from having any power over public policy and in particular medical treatment.

They can sacrifice themselves at their religious alter, they have no right to condemn others to their deluded fantasies.

[howcome]

This is where the tragic consequences of abortion need to be addressed on an individual basis..i.e Parental consent comes to mind.... Most except the most extreme want a provision for health of the mother... Illinois has a bill , that if passed would close down 643 religious affiliated hospitals and clinics by forcing them to perform abortions.

[SurrealPumpkin]

Would it really? Or would it simply force them to admit that abortion is an option which can be considered? If they choose to close down because of that I fail to see how the law is at fault.

[surfcitysteven]

The American Taliban must be defeated.

[unnecesarean]

The concept of personhood is already in play in reproductive health. Due to factors including reliance on standardized technologies, unrealistic cultural attitudes that every pregnancy and birth should have a perfect outcome and hospitals’ and doctors’ self-perpetuated mythology around litigation, pregnant women are already expected to subject themselves and their fetuses to many interventions in the name of safety.
Safety sounds great, but there is no evidence that women and babies benefit beyond a certain point from these record-high induction and cesarean rates. Severe maternal morbidities have risen significantly in the last decade and researchers correlate this with the rise in the cesarean rate (currently 31.8%).
Criminalizing women for their “treatment” of the fetus in their uterus would be based on what set of standards? Hard scientific evidence or arbitrary clinical judgment and fluffy obstetric mythology?
Opinions on what is harmful vary greatly. The unproven claim that a planned c-section is as safe as or safer than vaginal birth is snowballing right now in obstetrics. In the absence of evidence, doctors are trying to sidestep any threat of litigation by performing c-sections on healthy women because they believe that a) they will have proven that they intervened as much as possible to “save the baby” and b) because many actually believe that c-sections are superior to vaginal birth.
Thanks to Personhood, hospitals could just get a court-order for your c-section rather than trying to scare you into compliance.

Jill
www.unnecesarean.com

[SurrealPumpkin]

The unproven claim that a planned c-section is as safe as or safer than vaginal birth is snowballing right now in obstetrics. In the absence of evidence, doctors are trying to sidestep any threat of litigation by performing c-sections on healthy women because they believe that a) they will have proven that they intervened as much as possible to "save the baby" and b) because many actually believe that c-sections are superior to vaginal birth.

--------

leaving me to wonder why women don't come equipped with zippers.

[unnecesarean]

LOL! I am dying to see that patent application.

[Reasonableperson197]

By the logic of this article women had no rights prior to 1973.
This article embodies the typical scare tactic strategy that has worked so well for the abortion proponents.
"If the preborn child has the rights of a person, then the mother does not"? Come on, if that's not fundamentalism, then what is?
Doctors and our legal system are more than capable to try to save the lives of both mother and child, and be able to tell the difference from intentional or reckless homicide.

[LeftRight]

On the other hand, with the laws of "personhood" the woman will lose her rights to abortion. That's not a scare tactic, that's simply reasonable thinking.

There is no basis for counting the rights of the unborn as more important than the rights of the mother. Until such time as she gives birth, she is the host in a symbiotic relationship which has no legal grounds for limiting her rights AT ALL!!

[angelawittman]

Quoting LeftRight: "There is no basis for counting the rights of the unborn as more important than the rights of the mother. Until such time as she gives birth, she is the host in a symbiotic relationship which has no legal grounds for limiting her rights AT ALL!!"

No one is counting the rights of the unborn as more important than the rights of the mother - where do you get this idea? What is so wrong about wanting all (both preborn and born people) to have the same rights and protection under law?

[propitiousmoment]

Actually, it's more parasitic than symbiotic. The fetus is in true competition with the mother for all of her nutrients, etc. It's not really cooperative at all.

[unnecesarean]

Reasonable­person197, I agree that it's not a black or white issue. Paltrow doesn't claim that it is.

Respectfully, I wish to point out that your appeal to authority is horribly patronizing. Women's health is, in your scenario, left to the capable hands of doctors and "our legal system." Would you like to know who's judgment you have not considered in your Doctor (or Judge) Knows Best system?

The pregnant woman's.

Women combat attitudes like yours EVERYDAY.

Planning a home birth or an unmedicated birth in the hospital? Trying to avoid a c-section? Hoping for a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean)? Might as well kiss those hopes goodbye. If the doctor on duty doesn’t trust in the process of normal birth and sees vaginal birth as dangerous to your baby REGARDLESS of whether his judgment is evidence-based or not, you’re getting rolled to the OR.

You probaby didn't realize that you had left out a woman's judgment and authority over her own body, so I thought I'd help you by pointing that out.

[SurrealPumpkin]

1920 - women gain the right to vote

1965 - In Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court overturns one of the last state laws prohibiting the prescription or use of contraceptives by married couples.

1981 - see: Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 459-60 (1981), overturns state laws designating a husband “head and master” with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife..

1991 - United Auto Workers v Johnson Controls - prohibits policies against hiring fertile women in situations where conditions might be hazardous to a fetus. Note fertile, not pregnant.

we have a long way to go, let's not head backwards.

http://www.legacy98.org/timeline.html
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file420_24353.pdf