Personhood amendment would ban pill RU-486 - News

PRINT THIS Popular

Nov. 17, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

CORRECTIONS: PersonhoodUSA, the national organization promoting a proposed constitutional amendment designed to halt abortions in Nevada, was misidentified in some references in Tuesday’s editions.

Personhood amendment would ban pill RU-486

By ED VOGEL
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

CARSON CITY -- The leader of a Nevada organization that wants to outlaw abortion acknowledged Monday that passage of its Personhood amendment would prohibit women from using pills that induce abortion.

Olaf Vancura, president of Personhood Nevada, said any birth control pill or other forms of contraception that end pregnancies or destroy "newly formed life" would be outlawed if voters approve the proposed constitutional amendment.

Most Popular Stories

Obama dings Las Vegas — again

'YOU DON'T BLOW A BUNCH OF CASH IN VEGAS ...': Obama remark reopens wound

LAUGHLIN EDGEWATER: Two dead in casino car crash

NORM: Ad's Strip scenes raised eyebrows

Shutting down the Ritz

Former commander of USS Cole considers run against Reid

Tourist describes chaos as car plows into Laughlin casino, killing two

NORM: $1 million wager on Super Bowl approved

IMAGES FROM 1860S: Photos show historic Nevada

Fighter battles rare disease that shatters mixed martial arts dream

Birth control designed to prevent a pregnancy before one occurs would not be prohibited, he said.

"It is really very simple," said Vancura, who described himself as a scientist with a doctorate in physics. "Our amendment is about life and the right to life. Forms of birth control that do not cause an abortion would not be prohibited.

"With an abortion, someone dies."

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a lawsuit in Carson City District Court on Thursday challenging the language in the Personhood amendment as being vague and deceptive. A date for a hearing has not been set.

The proposed amendment's language does not use the terms abortion or birth control.

It states that a "person" is a human being from the moment of biological development and that persons are entitled to due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

In coming days, Vancura intends to post on the personhoodnevada.com Web site a list showing acceptable and unacceptable forms of birth control.

Until Monday, no one from Personhood Nevada had acknowledged that some forms of birth control would be prohibited.

However, the ACLU last week pointed out that the proposed amendment would prohibit some types of birth control and outlaw abortions even in the case of rape or incest.

Elisa Maser, legislative lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, said Vancura's admission that birth control would be limited shows how radical the proposed amendment really is.

"This is an incredibly sweeping and drastic measure," Maser said. "They need to tell folks how far they will go into their private lives."

The RU-486 (Mifeprex or Mifepristone) pill is meant to induce abortion, Maser said.

But the so-called "morning-after pill" is a form of emergency contraception that does not necessarily induce an abortion because the woman does not know if she is pregnant, she said.

A morning-after pill is a high-dose birth control pill that is used in cases where a woman might have had unprotected sex, or "if the condom broke, if you will," Maser said.

The most common emergency contraception pills are called Preven and Plan B. They are birth control pills containing progesterone, estrogen or a combination of both.

However, some anti-abortion activists maintain that the pill and IUDs, or intrauterine devices, not only prevent pregnancies, but also induce abortions.

"Ninety-eight percent of all women use contraception at some time in their lives," Maser said. "We aren't trying to use scare tactics. But now they (Personhood Nevada) are saying what they intend to accomplish."

The PersonhoodUSA organization has acknowledged that under the proposed amendment, abortion would not be allowed in any case.

PersonhoodUSA, a Christian organization, is a national drive in 31 states to pass amendments or laws in an effort to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortion.

Since 1973, 50 million abortions have been conducted in the United States, according to Keith Mason, PersonhoodUSA co-founder.

Before the Nevada Personhood amendment can become law, organizers need to gather 97,002 valid signatures by Aug. 4, and the amendment must be approved by voters on the 2010 and 2012 election ballots.

Vancura said he is not a medical doctor and wants a dialogue from residents about what are and what are not acceptable birth control methods.

But he said RU-486 and emergency contraception pills clearly cause abortions and should be outlawed.

Vancura said opponents will try to obfuscate the issue by noting the amendment would stop abortions in the case of rape of incest.

But he said life begins at the moment of conception.

He said that over the years, life has been "devalued" in the United States.

"Today rational people must agree that life begins at conception," Vancura said. "This is a civil rights issue. The government should not pressure people to die, or young people to have abortions. The right to life is fundamental."

Maser said it cannot be determined scientifically when life begins inside a woman's body.

"You can tell it in a lab, in a petri dish, but not in the woman's body," she said.

Richard Ziser, a longtime Las Vegas conservative activist and Personhood Nevada's campaign manager, announced the petition drive on Oct. 21.

Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	27 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Eve wrote on December 01, 2009 11:12 AM: Aside from PersonhoodUSA's complete disregard for human rights (which according to international law states that all human beings - i.e. men and WOMEN - are born with a set of inalienable rights - including right to life (right not to die from an unsafe abortion), right to health care and benefits from scientific progress (RU-486!), information, freedom from oppression and gender discrimination, right to decide when and whether to have a family, and so on), Mr. Vancura also needs to be told that Preven and PlanB do not cause abortions. They prevent fertilization, not conception. If conception has already taken place (when the fetal sac attaches to the wall of the uterus), Preven and PlanB do not work. They will not expel an already established pregnancy. Hence they do not cause abortions. And to "pat": abortion was not "created to cover over the irresponsible... acts of the few..." Abortion by definition means both spontaneous abortion and induced abortion. Spontaneous abortion is what most people know as miscarriage and it is a natural process that women cannot control or elect - rather it is often cause for much grief in women who do want their pregnancy. Induced abortion is probably what you are thinking of, but even so, you can hardly talk of the acts of the few when 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion in their life time. Are you suggesting that over 50 million women in this country are irresponsible and egotistical - I pray that you do not have more than 2 female family members or friends. How could you possibly get along with them?... pat wrote on November 24, 2009 07:46 PM: Let's try some real freedom. How about recognizing that this discussion would not even be happening if people exercised control over their own rights, passions "freedoms" and recognized that any time there is sexual activity, with or without birth control, there is the possibility of conceiving a child? With that understanding, the reality is that sex is meant for procreation, not unrestrained passion and 'freedom'. Likewise 'responsible' action, meaning for clarity sake, intercourse between man and woman, should be entered into with the understanding that a child (that means a fellow human being) could be conceived. Freedom is only freedom when consideration is made for your own and the other's well-being. By definition, rights for one at the expense of another are no rights at all. Any time there is intercourse there are at least two people involved and the high potential of a third, ...check it out, that's how man and woman are made. Moreover, this should be a unifying and gratifying experience, again, the created intent of our design as humans. That rules out individuality, or the whole relationship is just ego and personal gratification, doing what feels good. No law for or against abortion is going to heal that chasm. So, speak softly about 'rights' unless you are mature enough and responsible enough not only to see the whole picture but also to ACT in the context of the multiples that are inherent in bi-sexual relations. Abortion was created to 'cover over' the irresponsible and egotistical acts of the few but has somehow become the prefered norm of the land. At the cost of 50 million plus babies that is a really mean-spirited way to live "freedom" and "rights". Ryan Peters wrote on November 19, 2009 08:44 PM: "Christians better understand the true meaning of love and what it means to be pro-life these two powerful messages are producing fruit, (even though right now a good bit of it is being hurled at us). But when fellow believers lose their way, it is the spirit of God embodied in His Church that must warn them of errors that lead to destruction, that they might be saved, even as if through fire."From Doug McBurney's writings chris wrote on November 19, 2009 04:49 PM: teresa, OMG you are so stupid. This is not about "women not being ready" this is about not killing human beings. Should parents be allowed to kill their two year old if they are not ready? What other circumstances is it ok to kill a innocent human being? So far we have: if their father was a rapist or if the mother was related to the father and if they are not wanted. Let's kill all the unwanted in society, then we will have our utopia. teresa wrote on November 17, 2009 05:51 PM: OMG... This entire group of Nevada Personhood is basically stupid.. Birth Control is there to protect women if they are not ready for children. if a women is raped they should have the legal and moral right to have an abortion, why would you want it as a reminder of the horrible thing that happened to you. if you are not ready for a child and someone rapes you they are basically taking away your right to decide. I believe that everyone should have a right to decide what happens to their bodies and their life. I would not get an abortion, but then again i would not force someone to have kids especially if they cannot take care of that human life. To go against someone's will to take away their right to decide, why not worry about something else like who will take care of the children if this law is passed. and would these people put them into foster care, clarify what kinds of contraceptive would be considered when they get an abortion, to what is being used to prevent pregnancies. FoxyMary wrote on November 17, 2009 05:37 PM: With ALL the issues this country is facing, THIS is the one folks latch onto!! It's like the guy with both a medical degree and a law degree that channeled all his energies into challenging the "one nation under God" phrase in the Pledge. It's so sad that he wasted his medical/legal talents (and time) to devote to this one issue. How sad that we can't celebrate this guy's service to others in truely meaningful ways. Dot Best wrote on November 17, 2009 05:12 PM: Hey, "the spirit". WTF is a spirit? Just more religious mumbo-jumbo working you up to take out your wallet. Bet Jimmy Swaggart is full of "spirit". The Catholic Church is full of "spirit" as long as their priests are celibate. Well, their few straight ones. It's obvious that such people are against abortion, so long as they don't have to support "the Baby" weep, weep, weep. Oh, that's right, we don't have enough people on this planet. Right? BobbyG wrote on November 17, 2009 02:42 PM: Dispositive refutation of "personhood at conception" here: http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/diploid-dave-et-al.html Bobby wrote on November 17, 2009 01:56 PM: More ILLEGAL laws telling us what we can do and what we can't do. And all this is happening in a FREE COUNTRY. Really? FREE COUNTRY? People are FREE? Awesome stuff! BattleBorn wrote on November 17, 2009 01:32 PM: Olaf.....Go count some more cards, and mabye K.O. yourself..... Read All Comments