Why Personhood?

Before considering the question, "Why Personhood?" it might be best to explain what Personhood is. The simple, dictionary definition of the word "person" is "a human being." The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees both the right to life and the equal protection of the law to all persons under the jurisdiction of the United States. Personhood is the effort to gain recognition in law that the term "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to all human beings from conception until natural death.

So, why Personhood? Politically, the pro-life movement has been a failure for over thirty-five years now. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case is now (mistakenly) considered to be above any law passed by Congress or the state legislatures. Pro-life efforts to get Roe v. Wade overturned have focused on Supreme Court appointments, yet, when George W. Bush left office, seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were nominated by supposedly pro-life Republican presidents. Why, then, is Roe v. Wade still firmly entrenched in our legal system?

Many "pro-life" figures have simply made too many compromises. Laws intended to regulate against the most heinous of abortion procedures instead serve as an instruction manual for performing an abortion. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 did nothing but instruct abortionists on how far outside the birth canal a baby's body could be before that abortionist could no longer puncture that baby's skull and kill him or her. Why was this considered a victory for the pro-life movement? Those of us who advocate full Personhood rights for the unborn can no longer accept or tolerate any law that ends with describing any condition under which an abortionist can then go ahead and kill a child.

Another reason for the past 35 years of failure is that so many in the pro-life movement advocate exceptions for children conceived in acts of rape or incest. If any unborn child is to be considered a person with an unalienable right to life, then ALL unborn children MUST receive that same consideration. If all unborn children are persons with the right to life, then the child conceived as the result of an act of rape or incest has as much claim to the right to life as any other. Pro-lifers who argue for these exceptions destroy their own argument. If we allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, then upon what basis can we argue for the right to life of other children? The only logical argument against abortion that I could figure from such a position is that we regard children as punishment for some kind of sexual sin and that abortion is an attempt to escape such punishment. That argument disregards any right of the child and is easily discarded as any kind of a reason to make public policy.

The only truly "pro-life" position, one that respects the right of ALL human beings to life and liberty, is that of Personhood. Efforts are underway in several states to enact constitutional amendments defining unborn children as "persons." As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment."

If you would like more information about the efforts in other states, and how to get involved in such efforts, please visit www.personhoodusa.com.