Comments (154) | Add a comment
Pro-life group can now circulate petition to outlaw abortion
Tools
Read the petition decision.
NEW ABORTION PETITION LANGUAGE
All persons are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights including the right to life. This initiative proposes to add a new section to the Nevada Constitution to protect a prenatal person’s right to life. The new section would make it unlawful to intentionally kill a prenatal person by any means. The term “prenatal person” includes every human being from the moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm and at all stages of development from that time until birth. The initiative would protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman’s health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the “pill”; and to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and others.
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
Updated: Dec. 20, 2011 | 7:57 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- After major editing by a judge, a Nevada Pro-life Coalition petition to outlaw abortion was allowed to be circulated Monday.
Carson City District Judge James Wilson rewrote language in the 200-word description of the initiative petition to amend the state constitution. His editing could cause some voters to think twice about signing.
Wilson inserted language that states passage of the petition would affect women's right to use the pill for birth control and would prevent abortions in cases of rape, incest or even when a woman's health is jeopardized by a pregnancy.
He also stated in the petition's new description that passage would affect stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and the treatment of ectopic pregnancies.
Petition descriptions are important because most people do not read the entire text before deciding whether to sign them.
Chet Gallagher, one of the coalition's leaders, hailed the decision, although he disagreed with Wilson's conclusions.
Two years ago, a similar petition was kept off the ballot in part because it violated a rule that it must apply only to a single subject.
Gallagher was pleased his petition had cleared that hurdle.
"If people really want surgical and chemical abortion to end, they will have to help us," he said. "We are Christians who are partnered with God. If we will do our part, then he will do his part."
Gallagher said his group probably will start circulating the petition early next year.
The group needs to gather 72,352 valid registered voter signatures by June 19. To amend the state constitution, voters would have to approve the petition in both the 2012 and the 2014 general elections.
Gallagher disagreed with Wilson's view that the petition would affect common birth control methods, saying the state Legislature would have to decide whether any birth control method is prohibited.
Language in a similar petition by Personhood Nevada, another anti-abortion religious group, will be considered by the judge on Wednesday.
Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union have charged that the language in both petitions is vague and misleading. They have asked the judge to change the petitions so that people can understand their full meaning.
Gallagher campaigned two years ago in Nevada for another Personhood petition, but he said the current initiatives are separate petitions by different organizations. If a judge allows both petitions to go forward, the groups could decide to circulate just one of them, he said.
Opponents were pleased that Wilson made changes to explain the full effects of the anti-abortion petition, but they were disappointed that the petition could be circulated.
"Nevadans deserve to know that this initiative seeks to outlaw women's health services like abortion, the birth control pill and treatment for complicated pregnancies," said Elsa Cafferata, president of Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates. "Nevadans do not support interfering in women's personal and private decision making."
Cafferata said Planned Parenthood and the ACLU will discuss whether to appeal Wilson's ruling to the state Supreme Court. They also could wait and see whether the Pro-life Coalition gathers the required signatures.
"We have a lot of work to do to make sure people know what they would be voting on," she said. "People should know what it entails before they sign it."
Dane Claussen, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said the original petition language would have "tricked voters."
"We're relieved that the court refused to allow proponents to deceive voters in this manner," Claussen said.
Cafferata noted that 21 years ago, on a nearly 2-1 vote, Nevadans passed a referendum that put into state law the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting abortion.
And in the November election in Mississippi, which is considered a more conservative state than Nevada, voters rejected by 16 percentage points a Personhood anti-abortion petition.
Gallagher, a former Las Vegas police officer, said that he worked on the Mississippi campaign and that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood spent more than $1 million distorting what the petition would do.
"The bottom line is people who should have known better voted against the stopping of killing lives in Mississippi," he said.
Gallagher said the Pro-life Coalition failed to get expert testimony to counter the testimony of opponents' experts at the Dec. 13 hearing before Wilson.
"Birth control is not going to end," he said. "Doctors are not going to be arrested if they end the life of a baby to save the life of the mother. You would have to legislate that."
But he said that passage would prevent abortions in cases of rape or incest. Aborting a baby should not be allowed just because of the sins of its father, he added.
Gallagher was fired as a police officer on duty in 1989 after he showed up at an abortion clinic protest that his supervisors had told him not to attend. He said he does not regret his decision because he is a Christian who believes abortion is murder.
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
gbigs. I see that you another one of the right wing funDUHmentalists that just know when life begins.
greenhorseman. Hmmm, let me see now. YOU in all your infinite wisdom know when a person becomes a person. After all, doctors and scientists and theologians don't know when person hood begins. But you sure do.
candtsmom.. I thought the same thing about his wife. He seems to spin these things in every angle. In another post he stated that his wife would have the baby of a rapest.He said they both agreed (I bet)Then in another posts he says she's 50+. I would think her chances of getting pregnant at her age is pretty slim. So old greenhorse pretty much has his basses covered. I think he's really Warren Jeffs.
greenhorseman - I read your statement on the other article about your wife. So I'm a little confused, it was ok for her to have an abortion, but now you don't support it?
I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.
The rights of the unborn child? What about the rights of the women? Have you ever considered that? Apparently not. Again we have Roe V. Wade, and even if this were to get on a ballot, it won't pass and even if it did, it would still have to go in front of Supreme Court.
You keep saying if women would keep there legs closed..
candtsmom wrote on December 21, 2011 07:36 AM:
So if a women tries to keep her legs closed and she gets raped, then what? We have Roe V. Wade in place for reasons. There are women out there that use abortions as a form of birth control, which I do not agree with.
Why do you always use the rape/Incest argument to set the standard? Rape/incest account for less than 1 percent of abortions in the US. Yet it is thrown out there as if the vast majority of abortion is due to Rape...No matter what, there will always be an exception to the rule, but you want to MAKE the exception the rule.
You are right Maxi, Too many unwanted children out there, lets just kill them...IF I SAID IT ONCE I'LL SAY IT A THOUSAND TIMES,
"KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS" OFF OF MY BODY. DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY BODY, IT IS JUST LIKE A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT MUTILATES GIRLS
That is such a lame argument, the mantra of the feminist movement...The fact is, its about human rights for the unborn baby.
The correct mantra should be "Keep your baby killing hands off your own unborn child"!
Two reasons for all of us to be Pro Choice, Couch Potato and Private Sector Pete!
People need to understand that the 1st ammendment of the constitution guarantees freedom of religion in this country, and it also guarantees freedom from religion. No law should ever be created based on religious beliefs period. If you don't want an abortion, fine, don't get one, but don't use your faith as a cudgel to force your views onto others.