On November 4, 2008, the pro-life movement suffered losses on five state ballot initiatives. Yet there is much we can learn from the three pro-life ballot initiatives defeated (in California, Colorado, and South Dakota) and the two anti-life ballot initiatives passed (in Michigan and Washington). 

Specifically, these losses demonstrate that legislative efforts at the state level must remain at the forefront of the cause for life during the coming Obama administration. With dangerous legislation like the Freedom of Choice Act—a radical bill Obama has promised to sign—looming, pro-life forces continue to enact laws protecting women and the unborn from the negative impact of abortion and take immediate action to counter the increased efforts by abortion advocates to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law. We have learned that our greatest successes—as demonstrated in South Dakota—have come not through ballot initiatives, but through such state legislative action.

To read the entire article, please visit the Culture of Life Foundation’s website at http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/519/1/

With today’s election, the pro-life movement is at a critical crossroads. We need every pro-life American to vote today!

But after we’ve voted and the dust settles, what will we do next? Please join me and our AUL experts for a post-election conference call (toll free) on Wednesday, November 5 at 3pm ET (2pm CT, 1pm MT, 12pm PT) for 30 minutes of pro-life election summary and analysis, followed by a time of Q&A.

We will discuss the impact of the new President, the changed makeup of Congress, countless state legislative races, and the five pro-life state ballot measures.

To join the call, you must register. Visit http://tinyurl.com/5gfebx to sign up ASAP.

And please invite your friends to join us.

By J. Margaret Datiles
Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life

The debate over legislation and voter initiatives defining state constitutional “personhood” to include the unborn from conception (commonly referred to as “Human Life Amendments,” or “HLAs”) has sparked significant interest both inside and outside the pro-life community. An overarching goal of the pro-life movement is to protect the innocent lives of unborn persons, and state HLAs have been suggested as one possible means to achieve this goal. However, the media and many advocates on both sides of the abortion debate are not clear about the meaning and effect of the various forms of “personhood.” Consequently, it has become difficult to engage in an effective discussion of the personhood of the unborn and various methods or tools for securing legal protection of the unborn.

To facilitate and improve the on-going dialogue on the question of personhood, this article (1) clearly defines and distinguishes the terms “moral person,” “legal person,” and “constitutional person;” (2) points out how problems will arise from a lack of understanding of the differences between these terms; and (3) discusses the significance of these distinctions in the context of the debate on life issues.

Read the whole thing at AUL.org

Georgia’s two Catholic bishops, Atlanta Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory and Bishop J. Kevin Boland of Savannah, have declared that they do not endorse a Human Life Amendment to the Georgia State Constitution. In their written statement, the bishops asserted:

We do not support the passage of [House Resolution] 536 . . . We have come to the conclusion that the approach taken by HR 536 to amend the state constitution does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia.

A spokeswoman from Archdiocese of Washington stated that, “after consultation with constitutional legal experts, the bishops decided that only an amendment to the federal constitution would succeed in ’saving lives,’” and “We will be monitoring the legislation during the session to see if there are any changes, but the bishops have done a great deal of legal research and the decision is that this isn’t going to be a bill we’re going to support, although we’re not opposed to it in any way.”

Communications director of the Archdiocese of Atlanta Pat Chivers emphasized that there is not a split between the Catholic Church and the other pro-life organizations. Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory and Bishop J. Kevin Boland asserted that they have “admiration and respect for those who have crafted this legislation,” but they cannot endorse the bill. The church does not feel the amendment would help reduce the number of abortions and so it won’t advocate for it.

For more on state Human Life Amendments see “Amending the Approach” by AUL President Clarke Forsythe and AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke in National Review Online. An expanded version of the article appears in Defending Life 2008, “What’s the Point of a State Human Life Amendment?” (PDF).

National Review Online today published an article by AUL President Clarke Forsythe and AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke on state human life amendments (HLAs).

Pro-life activists in a few states are now exploring the merits of amending their state constitution by ballot initiative with a state “human life amendment.” In considering the prudence of a state human life amendment (HLA), organizational leaders and activists should ask a number of questions about the meaning, potential impact, implications, and costs of state amendments and the ballot initiative process.

The overarching question, however, is prudential — connecting means to ends: What is the goal of a state human life amendment and, given the resources involved, is it an effective means to achieve that goal? Answering this overarching question requires prudent analysis and a realistic view of the current legal, political, and social environments in the state.

Continue Reading at NRO . . .