Shifting words, but not tactics
North Dakota anti-abortion forces think they've figured out the secret to passing a hardline personhood amendment. You just scrub that one word out of it, then get very angry when opponents call it a personhood amendment
just because that's still what it is.
The proposal, known as Measure 1, would add a single sentence to the North Dakota constitution: "The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected." But the two camps fiercely disagree over whether this language makes Measure 1 a "personhood" amendment—the latest in a series of state proposals defining life as beginning at the moment of conception and giving legal rights to fertilized eggs.
When Measure 1 was being drafted, however, there weren't any pretentions that it wasn't a "personhood" bill. That's exactly what the bill was designed to be. They were proud of it.
Last year, as legislators debated whether to place Measure 1 on the ballot, North Dakota press and supporters of the bill universally referred to it as a "personhood amendment." Republican state Sen. Margaret Sitte—who wrote the amendment using a Wikipedia article as her guide—didn't object to the word "personhood" at the time. And a few days after the statehouse approved Measure 1, in March 2013, Sitte held a celebratory press conference with Personhood USA—the Colorado-based group responsible for kicking off the personhood movement—as well as with its local affiliate, Personhood North Dakota.
That was then, however. Now that voters are a bit more keyed in on what "personhood" means and the insane treatment of women that would result, they're scrubbing the word and pretending the bill does ... what, exactly? That's the curious part. According to advocates, the bill does nothing at all so no worries, banning in vitro fertilization and abortions and imposing criminal penalties for harming an embryo won't happen. It's just a bill that does nothing, but which anti-abortion opponents fervently want for reasons they can't explain.
But James Bopp, a conservative legal heavyweight who has derided personhood measures in the past, says that this ballot amendment is different. "This measure doesn't confer personhood," he tells Mother Jones. "It doesn't make the unborn a person. It doesn't confer rights on anybody."
So there ya go. It's not a "personhood" amendment, it's just a bill that declares the "right to life of every human being" at "any stage of development" shall be "recognized and protected."
North Dakota anti-abortion groups aren't the only ones to ditch the word "personhood"; the Colorado groups have similarly been scrubbing the naughty phrase. It appears that voters have heard the word "personhood" often enough that they now know exactly what it means and how radical it is, so the radicals need to shift their language yet again. We'll see if it works.