Comments (1) | Add a comment
'Personhood' ruling appealed
Tools
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 11:00 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- The Personhood Nevada organization has filed a state Supreme Court appeal of a district judge's decision prohibiting the circulation of a petition aimed at ending abortion.
Kenneth Wilson, treasurer of the organization, said Monday the group hopes that justices will overturn District Judge James Todd Russell's decision and allow the circulation of the petition. Russell ruled the petition was too vague and violated a state law that limits a ballot question to one subject.
Wilson said there still is enough time to get the petition before voters. The group would need to collect 97,002 valid signatures by Aug. 4 to place the matter before voters in November. If it were to pass, it would go before voters again in 2012.
The petition states that every person is a "human being" from the beginning of biological development. "It eliminates discrimination against Nevadans at the beginning of life and prohibits state intrusion in end of life decisions," the petition reads.
Lee Rowland, an American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer, said she expects the Supreme Court to expedite the case and schedule a hearing on the appeal by the end of March.
But Rowland said the petition as it stands is "too vague" and voters must know what they would be voting for or against.
Representing the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, Rowland argued in district court against allowing the petition to circulate.
The petition is part of a national effort by a religious group, PersonhoodUSA, to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision allowing women the right to choose abortion.
There are efforts in 31 states to put similar ballot initiatives before voters. Colorado voters in 2008 rejected a Personhood initiative by nearly a 3-to-1 ratio.
On the Personhood Nevada Web site, Olaf Vancura, president of the organization, called the initiative a civil rights measure similar to the 13th amendment that outlawed slavery. He called Russell's decision "an affront to the people's First Amendment rights. It also appears to be based upon a belief that the people of Nevada would not be able to understand, for themselves, what these handful of simple words mean."
At the time of the decision, Vancura said there was not enough time to rewrite the petition since that version also would be challenged by the ACLU.
"They would try to run the clock out on us," he said, referring to the deadline for getting petitions on the statewide ballot.
Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal 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 use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I must know -
If this were approved would that mean that the unborn could make legal campaign contributions?
Where would the law stand on this issue?
I would guess a lot of our politicians opinions would swing depending on how that were to be decided.