Personhood Education

The “Blue Book” as it is commonly known, is a guide that is put out by the state to give people an overview of the ballot initiatives and allow proponents and opponents an opportunity to give the arguments in favor and against the initiatives.

Over five months of hearings and draft proposals and after almost 70 pages of documentation, the Office of Legislative Council adopted ZERO arguments from the proponents while adopting the very language, tone, and tenor of the opposition.  This resulted in a manifestly partial, unfair, and biased ballot analysis going out on the tax payer expense to every registered voter in Colorado.

The Blue Book being mailed, is in clear violation of Colorado Constitution, Article V, § 1(7.5), requiring the non-partisanresearch staff of the General Assemblyʼs Legislative Council to provide a fair and impartial analysis of each measure, which shall include a summary and the major arguments both for and against the measure.

The blue book contains outright lies that will mislead voters, such as: that Amendment 62 would have the effect of preventing women from getting treatment for miscarriages, that Amendment 62 would result in prosecutions of medical professionals when they treat pregnant mothers, and that the term, “the beginning of biological development of a human being” has no basis in law, medicine, or science.  All of these assertions go further than representing opposing arguments, they are patent lies, and the state should not use tax payer money to promulgate them.

The proponents of Amendment 62 demand the Office of Legislative Council issue a retraction to every person who has received a blue book, and we ask the courts to put a stop to the printing and further mailing of this biased and unconstitutional Blue Book.

Otherwise, the state will have joined forces with Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry, the and the political establishment to prevent the voters of the state of colorado from receiving both sides of the argument regarding Amendment 62.

You can read the complaint by clicking on the link below.

Garcia Hanks v State

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Editor in Chief, James Bopp (National Right to Life Counsel) leads with the following preface to Gregory J. Roden’s seminal article on Constitutional Personhood.

Preface
The featured article, by legal scholar Gregory J. Roden, discusses the
question whether unborn children are “persons” within the language and
meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because there is no
constitutional text explicitly holding unborn children to be, or not to be,
“persons,” his examination is founded on the historical understanding and
practice of the law, the structure of the Constitution, and the jurisprudence
of the Supreme Court.
In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that “the fetus is a ‘person’
within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The
Supreme Court responded in its majority opinion that “[i]f this suggestion
of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for
the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
Unfortunately, the majority’s legal analysis arrived at the opposite
conclusion, “that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment,
does not include the unborn.” It is the majority’s legal analysis that Mr.
Roden examines in fine detail.
First, Mr. Roden points out that the Constitution does not confer upon
the federal government the power to grant or deny “personhood” under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the power to recognize or deny unborn children as holders of certain statutory and common law rights and duties has historically been exercised by the states. The Roe opinion and other Supreme Court cases implicitly recognize this function of state sovereignty.
Second, he demonstrates that, at the time Roe was decided, the states
had exercised this power and held unborn children to be persons under their
criminal, tort, and property law. Because of the unanimity of the states in
holding unborn children to be persons under criminal, tort, and property
law, Mr. Roden argues that the text of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment compels federal protection of unborn children as
persons. Furthermore, he shows that to the extent the Court examined the
substantive law in these disciplines, its legal conclusions were not warranted.
Finally, Mr. Roden illustrates the inconsistency of federal statutory law
with Roe, in that it also treats unborn children as persons by recognizing
their eligibility for federal entitlements.
Due to the length of the featured article, no other material is included
in this edition.
James Bopp, Jr., J.D.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Read the entire article here:

http://www.grtl.org/docs/ILM_Spring%2010.pdf

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

On April 5, 2010 the IRS approved Personhood Education’s application for non-profit status.  This means that Personhood Education will now be able to accept donations that are tax deductible.

With the public’s attention piqued by the Personhood Amendments on the ballots of several states, the need for education on the personhood of the pre-born child is greater than ever.

Please watch out for our updated legal and medical resources, and coming very soon, a library of educational personhood videos.

Sincerely,

Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D.

Director of Personhood Education

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off

Personhood Education is dedicated to the education of the general public regarding the civil and human rights of all human beings as full persons under the law.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »