Eggmendment 2010 Gets Enough Signatures

This will change the race for Democrats and Republicans.

The Republicans will be forced to make a statement on it and the Democrats will come out more in force against it.  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 20:44:49 PM UTC

Agreed

Also fantastic quote

---

by: yomama @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 21:23:12 PM UTC

Thanks

Some people think this could hurt Dems. I don't see how that is, yomama.  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 21:27:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

other than the utter waste of funds

which pisses me off.

They have no respect for life.  

---

by: Fong @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 21:28:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a good year for it, imo

Fringe social questions like this aren't likely to be viewed as important given the horrendous state of employment and the economy.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 21:36:17 PM UTC

Personhood...historical perspective...

When I think back over the development of this issue, there is an obvious rule that is often overlooked in the heated debate about personhood.

No one ever considered a fetus a person until the "Moral Majority" (actually a minority) made issue of it.

Prior to that time (1980) the overwhelming consensus was that a Birth Certificate was the rite of passage into personhood and citizenship.

The loss of a fetus was sad, but few if any ever thought that the fetus was a person with human rights.

The issue of a woman's right to choose is even more poignant in a world over-populated with humans; the attempts by the right wing moralists/ideologues to take away this right of women over their own bodies bodes disaster for a planetary ecosystem already stressed beyond the point of sustainability.

We must fight these idiots and win; the imposition of their morality on the rest of the population is nothing less than the tyranny of the minority.

---

by: Michael David @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:04:19 AM UTC

Slippery sword...

Excellent perspective. A few of us constitution geeks have been tweaking the logic sequence of SCOTUS corporate personhood rulings, and the growing number of fetus personhood factions pushing for their measure at the State level.  

Most of us pro-choice Dems, were enraged with the pro-corporate personhood SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United v FEC. This perked up the "fetus personhood" faction's ears. They don't agree that "corporations are people too" - as well. But then, the envelope gets pushed by this group for "fetus" protection within human Constitutional interpretation.

Any Constitutional amendement to define "human" after the Roberts' court ruling could open pandora's box for the "fetus personhood" faction to overturn Roe v Wade.  As this process moves along it might be a good idea to really watch the "fetus faction" in their push to interpret "human" within our Constitution. Any thoughts?
   

---

by: Just Anita @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 13:30:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good point

Just Anita,

I'm glad we can agree on some things here.  I'll be honest that I hadn't considered the Citizens United and fetus personhood issues together, but you raise some frightening points.

I was concerned enough about the direct repercussions of corporations being considered people, let alone that it opens up "personhood" to a pretty broad interpretation.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 15:47:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]