On the ‘Unintended’ Consequences of Personhood, North Dakota Edition

These people are cruel and also liars, or they are grotesquely stupid, and in either case should not be making decisions for anyone: 

The single-sentence measure would be the nation’s first to amend a state constitution and require the “inalienable right to life” at “any stage of development.” Supporters say it’s meant to protect the state’s current abortion laws from judicial activism. Those opposed believe the intent is to outlaw abortion altogether and say the vague wording could affect birth control, end-of-life care plans and in vitro fertilization.


Butcher said the measure’s vague language is meant to “camouflage” its real intent to bar abortions and also could potentially affect end-of-life care plans and cause problems for infertile couples seeking to use in vitro fertilization.

“That absolutely is not the intent,” said Janne Myrdal, who heads ND Choose Life, a group supporting the measure. “The intent is to protect laws that are on the books already. The opposition is blatantly lying and trying to put fear in peoples’ minds.”

But Dr. Steffen Christensen, who founded North Dakota’s only in vitro fertilization clinic in Fargo 20 years ago, said he will close the clinic if the measure passes. His attorneys have told him doctors and workers are at risk of legal action “if there is a loss of an embryo.”

“We are covered for malpractice but criminal charges? We’re on our own,” he said. “Sooner or later, someone would try to make an example of us.”

North Decoder has a pretty great rundown on why this ballot measure and the rationales of its supporters are utter horseshit.

The uninformed and misguided actress in the video reads from a script which claims Measure 1 was put on the ballot “to protect the laws we already have.”  This is false. An amendment to the state constitution that is unconstitutional under the federal constitution, is still unconstitutional. These laws — or some of them — were declared unconstitutional because they violate the federal constitution. The idea that a state can adopt a state constitutional amendment in order to shield its federally unconstituional laws from being stricken…  is false. And it’s not just normal false false.  This assertion made by ND Choose Life is also a lie about our neighbors in North Dakota. It is a lie that pretends to explain why Measure 1 was put on the ballot. It was not put on the ballot “to protect the laws we already have” because, as a matter of fact and of law, it could not possibly “protect the laws we already have” if those laws violate the federal constitution (which they do).


One thought on “On the ‘Unintended’ Consequences of Personhood, North Dakota Edition

  1. Isn’t marajuana illegal by federal law. Yet in Colorado it was legalized hmmm. Food for thought.

Comments are closed.