• Article Tools
• Print
• RSS

Personhood Amendments and the Success of the Pro-Life Movement

by Margaret Datiles 

“Personhood amendments” are on the move. 

A recent Newsweek article by Sarah Kliff entitled “I Am Zygote, Hear Me Roar” discusses the growing number of ballot initiatives to amend state constitutions to define “personhood” as beginning at conception. The article suggests that the increased interest in these amendments arises from attitudes that the pro-life movement has failed, and that personhood amendments are the only way the movement can succeed in saving human lives.

I would respond to Kliff’s article by stating that the good work of the pro-life movement over the last 30 years has been fruitful, and we must not lose faith in our efforts to protect the sanctity of life through the legislative process. For the most recent example, just look at the House’s passage of the Stupak Amendment, which reflects growing American sentiment against the government paying for abortions.

As noted in the Newsweek article, though, many pro-life advocates remain frustrated that, after all these years, abortion is still legal. In response to this reality, advocates of personhood amendments strive to completely outlaw abortion in their states in one fell swoop and ignite a judicial challenge to Roe v. Wade. Some have crowned the push for personhood amendments as the only “real way” to fight for the pro-life cause. Kliff’s article even mentioned that some personhood amendment supporters consider the current pro-life movement as one of the “most failed movements” in history. 

In situations like this, where divisions come from both outside and inside of the pro-life movement, it is crucial for us to remember John Paul II’s words in Evangelium Vitae:  “What is urgently called for is a general mobilization of consciences and a united ethical effort to activate a great campaign in support of life.”

In addition, we must not underestimate the true impact and importance of incremental pro-life legislation. Some examples of these types of laws include bans on federal and state funding for abortions and bans on partial-birth abortion. Other examples are parental notification/consent laws, laws allocating government funds to pregnancy resource centers and laws requiring the use of ultrasound to determine the true gestational age of the unborn child with an option for the mother to view the image. Laws of this kind have saved countless human lives and have played a vital role in the pro-life movement over the last three decades. 

A recent study by Dr. Michael New entitled “The Effect of Parental Involvement Laws on the Incidence of Abortion among Minors” highlighted this. Published by the Family Research Council last year, the study demonstrated that when a state enacts a parental involvement law, the teen abortion rate drops by an average of 13.6 percent. In states that require parental consent rather than mere parental notice for teen abortions, the teen abortion rate drops about 19 percent. In states requiring involvement of two parents rather than just one, the teen abortion rate was seen to fall by 31 percent. Dr. New concluded that state-level parental involvement laws have been “an important causal factor” in the nearly 50 percent nationwide drop in teen abortions between 1985 and 1999. 

Such laws and others like them are anything but “failures” for the pro-life movement; on the contrary, they have been our victories and remain at the very heart of the pro-life movement. They are the result of tireless work and lifelong commitments to the cause for life.

As no personhood amendment has yet been successful in passing, it is clear that incremental pro-life laws are greatly needed at this time. This being the case, such laws should receive the support of the entire pro-life movement.

As John Paul II stated in Evangelium Vitae, “in our present social context … there is need to develop a deep critical sense, capable of discerning true values and authentic needs” regarding the cultivation of a culture of life.

I would argue that in today’s political and social climate, incremental pro-life laws are truly the “authentic needs” that John Paul II spoke of. Supporting them and valuing the victories of the pro-life movement are sure ways of responding to his call for a “united ethical effort” to campaign for life.

What has mystified many Catholics is why the Catholic bishops’ conferences have been reluctant to fully endorse personhood amendments. It may be hard to believe that the bishops would not support an effort to define human life as beginning at the moment of conception.  However, the bishops have made it clear that, although they greatly desire human life to be protected from conception, they must decline from endorsing personhood amendments at this time for purely strategic reasons. Considering our country’s legal structure, the way constitutional law works and the current political climate, the bishops have decided to continue their focus on incremental legislation. 

One of the legal reasons why the bishops may have declined to support personhood amendments is because of the “state action” doctrine. This doctrine encapsulates the principle that constitutions only apply to the actions of the government and its officials, not private persons. Thus, a personhood amendment would not directly apply to abortion providers and would not single-handedly outlaw abortion. In order to do that, the state criminal statutes would have to first be amended. 

In order to understand the bishops’ position, it is important to realize a personhood amendment would not necessarily create a court challenge to Roe v. Wade. No one can force the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case. Over the past years, there have been numerous opportunities for the Supreme Court to hear cases that could challenge Roe, and the Supreme Court has simply declined to hear them.

Likewise, a direct challenge to the holdings of Roe is not necessary for the Supreme Court to reconsider it.  For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court heard a case involving a parental notification and informed consent statute. The Court took that case as an opportunity to review the holdings of Roe; they did not need a direct challenge to do that. In Casey, the holdings of Roe were reaffirmed. With the current make-up of the Supreme Court, we cannot say with confidence that a challenge to Roe would result in a reversal rather than another devastating affirmation of Roe.

Constitutional lawyers and scholars have had a field day debating this issue, and there are certainly more reasons behind the bishops’ position that could be mentioned here.  Regardless, attention must be brought to the fact that the bishops have been careful not to actively hinder the work of amendment supporters. They have provided words of encouragement and ideological support for the personhood amendment cause; however, when it came down to legal technicalities and strategy, the bishops stepped back on the grounds of prudence.

In conclusion, as the pro-life movement faces more and more challenges, it is crucial for us to look back at its successes with pride and gratitude. At the same time, we must look forward with patience. Even if no single great victory occurs in the immediate future to end abortion once and for all, we should not lose hope in our legal efforts to secure respect and protection for all human life.

With legal change occurring gradually and slowly through incremental abortion regulations, we need not lose heart. Rather, we must recognize that each small victory is another step in what John Paul II has termed our “great campaign in support of life.”

 

---

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Headline Bistro or the Knights of Columbus.)