 "Photo: Tamra Martin")
Petitions to amend the Florida Constitution over the possible banning of birth control and abortions have been the center of debate in Tallahassee this month.
The group behind the amendment, Personhood Florida, is a Christian-based movement run by volunteers.
The group has the support of the American Life League, a Catholic anti-abortion organization based in Virginia that has filed amendments like this in more than a dozen other states.
Pat McEwen, the co-sponsor of the proposed legislation and leader of the group, called the amendment pro-life.
“Florida’s constitution gives rights to persons, but it doesn’t say who a person is,” McEwen said. “We like to say [the amendment] is pro-life. It gives rights to all sorts of people.”
According to McEwen, the group wants to be able to have the amendment placed on the ballot in 2010.
To do so, they would need to collect 678, 811 signatures by Feb. 1. If placed on the ballot, the group would then have to gain 60 percent of the vote to become constitutional law, McEwen said.
“Just by saying that unborn babies, disabled people, African-Americans, everybody has rights as a person, it will start changing the minds of people,” she said. “We understand you can’t legislate morality.”
According to the amendment, the words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
It is the wording of the amendment that has critics opposing not only its legality, but its intentions as well.
The problem lies with the line “the beginning of biological development,” which McEwen defines as the moment the sperm and the egg meet.
It could lead to the banning of most forms of female contraception, specifically birth control.
Adrienne Kimmell, the executive director of the Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, said she opposes the Personhood movement. She said that it restricts access to reproductive healthcare and would send women’s health backward.
“This is something that is being pushed by an extremist, fringe group nationally,” Kimmell said. “We’ve seen these attempts and we know that they [American Life League and Personhood USA] failed.”
They have tried in Oregon, Montana and Georgia and failed to get it on the ballot. In Colorado, they were defeated in a 3-1 margin, when it was on the ballot.”
Abigail Malick, a senior sociology and interdisciplinary studies major, said she was not surprised when she learned that attempts to pass the amendment had come to Florida.
“It would be very hurtful to women, it’s a bill against women’s reproductive rights,” Malick said. “It brings the government between a woman and her doctor and would impact us all. Whenever you are taking away rights from women, it affects everyone.”
According to Erin Kettles, the director of marketing for UCF Health Services, the pharmacy fills out approximately 1,500 birth control prescriptions per month and the women’s clinic writes nearly 1,300 prescriptions for birth control per month.
Kimmel said that 98 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives and nearly 1.7 million women are in need of birth control as it is a part of women’s health.
Ashley Lee, a senior women’s studies major, decided to research the topic further after hearing about it on campus.
Lee, who is also a member of the UCF chapter for the National Organization for Women, believes that if passed, the amendment would change women’s lives as we know it.
“I definitely think it is an absurd proposal because it is dangerous to women and to people as a governed body,” Lee said. “Everyone has their own beliefs and it just seems that certain groups of people want to impose [their beliefs] on others or at least work really hard to impose it on others.”
Stephanie Kovats, the director of the Eastside Clinic of the JMJ Life Center, had never heard of the group before learning about the amendment on the news, but supports their efforts.
“It’s sad that we would have to make an amendment that claimed unborn people are persons,” Kovats said. “I mean, what else are they?”
Still, Kovats said she does understand the issues that arise in regards to women’s rights and women’s access to birth control, and thinks the passage of the bill is “mighty unlikely.”
Kimmell echoes this sentiment, albeit for different reasons.
“I think that Floridians are going to see this for what it is: an attempt by an extremist group to come in and amend our Constitution and by the government to intervene in our lives,” Kimmell said.
Even if the amendment were written into the state constitution, it would be in direct violation of Roe v. Wade, a 1973 Supreme Court decision that held the U.S. Constitution gave women the right to have an abortion.
Moreover, a subsequent ban on birth control would go against Griswold v. Connecticut, which stated that the use of birth control was protected under the Constitution’s right to privacy.
Malick, however, still thinks people should take action against the amendment.
“I don’t think it will pass. The group that’s pushing this is more of a fringe group and they don’t have a lot of support — not even among conservatives,” Malick said. “But I do suggest that everyone contact their state representative, congressman or congresswoman and senators. You just have to take everything seriously, even if you don’t think it will pass.”
10 comments
Lots of contraceptives eject the egg after fertilization. I understand that this can be considered a morally gray area, since lots of people want to argue that once the egg is fertilized, it has the potential to be a human being. I know other folks want to argue that when it comes screaming out the womb, that's when it's a human being. I'm not touching that minefield.
My beef is with the proposed ban on even daily oral contraceptives. It prevents ova from being released by halting the ovulation cycle. If there is no egg, it can't be fertilized, and thus there is no argument over whether it's a baby or not. I see nothing ethically wrong with preventing birth by preventing half the necessary gametes to be present. As KB earlier pointed out, lots of females take contraceptives for reasons other than birth control, such as hormone replacement therapy or alleviating the associated pain due to menstruation.
Should PersonhoodUSA continue its campaign in Florida, I would at least like to see them amend their ban on contraceptives. Until then, I'm going to start writing to officials about this.
It also takes away from women's rights and the rights that have to protect themselves. Taking away birth control for women means they should take away Vasectomy for men. When are people within the religious community going to understand that taking away these rights are going to make it so that more children are having children. . . Which means more of your tax dollars going to helping others who are younger and having children out of wedlock.