Oct 202010
 
Authors: Sarah Millard

I’m a journalism major because I love to write. I’m a columnist for the Collegian because I love to have strangers come up to me and gush over my latest column as if I’m some sort of local celebrity because they see my face every Thursday.

Just kidding. But not really.

In all actuality, I write for the Collegian because of my love for writing and my talent for argumentation, which stems from my love of politics.

Plus, what other jobs let you talk about yourself for 700 words once a week? Not many.

As well as making sure that my picture (which isn’t what I really look like, I swear) has a 10,000 copy distribution, writing for the Collegian helps me maintain my political prowess by ensuring that every Tuesday night around 11:30 I am frantically scanning newspaper headlines to find something controversial enough to write about.

This week’s search turned out to be quite short. With the November mid-term elections coming up, local media is a-buzz with campaign ads, both positive and negative in nature.

On the Colorado ballot this year, there are many choices: some amendments and some candidates that limit the freedom of certain individuals. And while the political language and possible implications may be difficult to understand for someone who does not fall asleep to C-SPAN (don’t judge me), there is one amendment that is quite clear and for the wrong reasons.

Amendment 62 calls for the definition of a person to be included in the Colorado constitution.

According to the Personhood Colorado website, this amendment would change the current definition to: “Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

It doesn’t exactly take a political genius to interpret the wording of this amendment and the potential problems it could cause if it were to pass.

By defining a person as someone who has inalienable rights from the moment of their biological development, birth control measures such as Plan B emergency contraceptive could be made illegal based on a simple definition.

Additionally, this means that in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, doctors could be prohibited from doing anything that might harm the unborn child to save the life of a living, breathing woman.

This amendment would, in essence, make the abortion of an embryo, even in the early stages, murder under Colorado law.

The danger here is unprecedented. By stamping such a vague but seemingly concrete definition on something as fragile as the “life” of an embryo, thousands of women and doctors will be placed given a horrifying dilemma; save the woman with a career, a family and a life or save the fetus, who now has the same rights as the people in the world around them.

This amendment would end abortion as a form of birth control, but is not the answer to this problem. Rather, we as a society must educate ourselves on proper forms of birth control and take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions.

Currently, we are given endless opportunities to pursue a safe sex life that will not result in a child. From birth control offered at Hartshorn to the free condom cart that parks itself in the plaza, there is no excuse to not have a viable form of contraception.

The elections in Colorado this year are on the national stage. Due to the surprising rise of a third party candidate in the gubernatorial race and the closely contested senatorial race, all eyes will be on Colorado come November. And if Amendment 62 passes, it will definitely say something about Colorado and our disregard for the freedoms for women.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, Amendment 62 is too vague and too definitive to be placed in our constitution. It is dangerous to Colorado citizens and will drastically limit the freedoms of women when it comes to dictating our own bodies.

For those reasons, I would like to urge all of you to vote “no” on Amendment 62 this Nov. 2.

Sarah Millard is senior political science major. Her column appears Thursdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be reached letters@collegian.

 Posted by at 2:12 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.