Charles Ashby wrote an article about the Ballot issues for this fall’s election. One of the issues is another attempt to ban abortions. Ashby’s article touched off a firestorm of comments, both pro and con about Amendment 62. This ballot issue changes one phrase in the ballot issue that was defeated in 2008. Colorado voted overwhelmingly against giving a fetus citizenship rights.
According to the Bell Policy Center, “Opponents say the beginning of “biological development” has no medical or legal meaning. This would insert government into the private health decisions of women and their families. The measure would restrict many procedures, including cancer treatment and in-vitro fertilization, and ban most forms of contraception.”
I’ve been fighting for a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health since before abortion was legal. I first started thinking about it before birth control was made legal in the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut.
The problem with citizen initiated ballot initiatives, as the process now stands, is that things that are emotional get on the ballot without any real consideration of unintended consequences. Other states have higher standards for what gets on the ballot and/or higher requirements to pass a ballot initiative. I am all in favor of making it more difficult to get citizen initiated ballot initiatives on the ballot so that we don’t have to keep voting on the same issue over and over and over again simply because a minority is emotional about it.
I’ve long said that there is too much testosterone in government. Why don’t we start banning Viagra, or forcing men to have vasectomies? Maybe I’ll start a petition drive to get those ideas on the ballot. I think there are still more women than men who vote. Maybe we can start forcing men to defend their right to control their own bodies.
I’m voting no on Amendment 62.
Homework:
Article About Ballot Issues
Bell Policy Guide to Ballot Issues
Griswold v. Connecticut
According to the Bell Policy Center, “Opponents say the beginning of “biological development” has no medical or legal meaning. This would insert government into the private health decisions of women and their families. The measure would restrict many procedures, including cancer treatment and in-vitro fertilization, and ban most forms of contraception.”
I’ve been fighting for a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health since before abortion was legal. I first started thinking about it before birth control was made legal in the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut.
The problem with citizen initiated ballot initiatives, as the process now stands, is that things that are emotional get on the ballot without any real consideration of unintended consequences. Other states have higher standards for what gets on the ballot and/or higher requirements to pass a ballot initiative. I am all in favor of making it more difficult to get citizen initiated ballot initiatives on the ballot so that we don’t have to keep voting on the same issue over and over and over again simply because a minority is emotional about it.
I’ve long said that there is too much testosterone in government. Why don’t we start banning Viagra, or forcing men to have vasectomies? Maybe I’ll start a petition drive to get those ideas on the ballot. I think there are still more women than men who vote. Maybe we can start forcing men to defend their right to control their own bodies.
I’m voting no on Amendment 62.
Homework:
Article About Ballot Issues
Bell Policy Guide to Ballot Issues
Griswold v. Connecticut
RSS Feed