Wisconsin Personhood Amendment: Front page news, along with Ryan Braun

Need I say more about the watershed moments of both Braun's achievement and the introduction of personhood legislation...

Today's Wisconsin State Journal:

Many Wisconsin abortion foes are cheering the introduction of legislation that would amend the state constitution to extend personhood to the moment an egg is fertilized, although the state's two largest anti-abortion groups are at odds over the approach.

The legislation is patterned after a similar measure that Mississippi voters rejected earlier this month.

Critics say such measures would outlaw all abortions, including in cases of rape and incest, and ban all forms of hormonal contraception, including birth control pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs).

Wisconsin's "personhood" amendment, introduced last week by Rep. Andre Jacque, R-Bellevue, would define the terms "people" and "person" in the constitution to include "every human being at any stage of development."

Matt Sande, lobbyist for Pro-Life Wisconsin, which backs the legislation and is working closely with Jacque, said the amendment "undoubtedly" would outlaw all forms of surgical and chemical abortion. On other issues, "we don't know exactly what it would mean, but our intent is to protect the preborn child at any stage of development from any violent attack, whether chemical, surgical or experimental," he said.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin has concluded the proposed language would ban hormonal contraception, said Nicole Safar, public policy director. "This is way out of touch with Wisconsin values," she said.

In a twist, Wisconsin Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state, has come out forcefully against the personhood amendment strategy, calling it "just plain wrong for Wisconsin."

Read the rest here.

Telling how PPWI acknowledges the abortion-causing effect of hormonal contraceptives, no? And yet certain pro-lifers refuse to address the issue. Cardinal Burke has something to say about that.

WRTL: "do not co-sponsor or support personhood"

TO: State lawmakers
FROM: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
RE: Please do not co-sponsor or support personhood bill (LRB 2859/1)

Wisconsin Right to Life has been forthright in our opposition to legislation to declare unborn children persons under the State Constitution. We appreciate the fact the author and the organizations that support his legislation want to protect the lives of unborn children. However, the personhood proposal is not only unnecessary, it would also put efforts to protect Wisconsin unborn children at extreme risk.

In a few weeks, we will be presenting you with an extensive legal white paper pointing out the pitfalls of the personhood legislation. The white paper will be signed by numerous constitutional legal experts on the state and national levels.

In the meantime, we would like to make the following points:

A prominent Wisconsin attorney who works with Wisconsin Right to Life was quoted out of context by supporters of the personhood bill, giving the impression that this attorney does not support Wisconsin Right to Life's position on personhood. This is inaccurate.

The impression was given by supporters of the personhood bill that a different constitutional expert who works with Wisconsin Right to Life has changed his mind on the personhood issue. This is also inaccurate.

Wisconsin Right to Life and its multiple legal advisors disagree with the legal analyses circulated to date by supporters of the personhood bill. The Wisconsin Right to Life legal white paper that will be sent to you will be signed by numerous legal experts and will outline the legal concerns with the personhood legislation.


We continue to ask legislators not to co-sponsor or support this legislation.

Thank you.

It will be interesting to see if WRTL ever brings up the whole might infringe on contraceptive rights argument.  The whole hypothetical argument that we end up worse off than we are today that has no legal precedent isn't convincing anybody on either side in this state so far.  National Right to Life has a vested interest.  If things get "bad" I would expect them to start sending more people in to scare people away from voting for it.  This state passed the marriage amendment 60-40... the hardest part of the battle is likely getting it on the ballot with pro-abort Republicans eager to be "sensible."

Wisconsin Personhood seeks co-sponsorship in state assembly

On Wednesday State Representative Andre Jacque (R-Green Bay) began circulating for co-sponsorship the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment, legislation that would amend the Wisconsin Constitution to apply personhood rights to preborn children at all stages of development. Click here to read the amendment language, and click here to view PLW’s legislative memo.

From a pro-life perspective, the Wisconsin Constitution contains a glaring error at its outset. In specifying the beneficiaries of its human rights, our state constitution leaves out the preborn. It applies rights to only those people who are “born.”

Representative Jacque is proposing a minimal but absolutely essential correction, a personhood amendment, to make the Wisconsin Constitution cover all people, every person, at any stage of development. The amendment seeks to extend the inalienable right to life found in the Wisconsin Constitution to all preborn children from the beginning of their lives. 

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned someday and the abortion issue remanded to the states, an activist Wisconsin Supreme Court could use the word “born” in our current state constitution to deny the right to life of the preborn by interpreting an independent right to abortion in that document. In so doing, the court could nullify any present or future pro-life laws in our state. The changing makeup of the Wisconsin Legislature could also jeopardize any pro-life laws in our state. Every two years our state election process determines the majority party in Madison. Legal protection of the preborn should not (and must not) be contingent upon which party controls the state legislature. The right to life should not be subject to the whims of a politicized supreme court or an ever-changing legislature. 

The introduction of the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment is a watershed moment in the history of the pro-life movement in our state. It seeks to end abortion in Wisconsin, not to regulate or restrict it. We have been working toward the introduction of such an amendment for the last five years, and we thank Representative Jacque for demonstrating the courage of his convictions in finally making it a reality.

The personhood amendment will face stiff opposition from the pro-abortion industry.  Shockingly, the strongest opposition to the bill at this point is coming from Wisconsin Right to Life (WRL). In February WRL published a position paper vowing to oppose any effort to grant Wisconsin’s pre-born babies full constitutional rights as persons, labeling such efforts a “threat to [the] protection of Wisconsin unborn children.” They worked hard to ensure a personhood amendment was never introduced. Having failed in that effort, they are now calling every state legislator demanding that they not sign on to the bill. WRL admits that their legal reasoning for opposing a state personhood amendment is speculative. WRL offers no case law to back up their asserted problems, admitting that they are only “probable”. Pro-Life Wisconsin, on the other hand, offers recent Wisconsin case law clearly demonstrating that the proposed amendment is not a risk to our current, pre-Roe abortion law (Section 940.04, Wisconsin Statutes) by “implied repeal” or otherwise. Click here for PLW’s legal analysis rebutting their misguided objections.

The pro-life movement is founded on the bedrock principle that all human beings, at all stages of their development, deserve full protection under the law. Why oppose proactive people of good will endeavoring to provide full and lasting legal protection for preborn children? Pro-Life Wisconsin remains committed to constitutionally protecting Wisconsin’s preborn children, regardless of opposition from the abortion industry or from within the right to life movement. 

 how you can help at Pro-Life Wisconsin

WRTL urges Wis. Legislature not to support Personhood

From: Barbara Lyons [mailto:BLyons@wrtl.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:43 AM
To: 'Wisconsin Right To Life'
Subject: Memo

Dear Members of the Wisconsin Legislature,

Wisconsin Right to Life urges you not to co-sponsor LRB 2859/1 [Personhood Amendment - she decided not to use the word Personhood in the email...], a proposed amendment to the State Constitution being circulated by Rep. Andre Jacque. Despite Rep. Jacque’s sincere intentions, the language of the amendment does not rectify the inherent problems with such an approach in Wisconsin.

1. There is no way that Rep. Jacque can prevent a legal challenge to this amendment and it will be struck down under Roe v. Wade.

2. Implied repeal of s.940.04 is not the major problem created by the amendment. The amendment would be viewed as in conflict with s. 940.04 and the latter law passed, the amendment, will be the prevailing law negating the effect of s. 940.04. Prosecutors will be left with no means to bring charges against a person who performs an abortion because the amendment does not create a crime or apply penalties. A future legislature, if it is willing, would have to pass a new law prohibiting abortion, having negated the one we already have.

More extensive information can be found at http://www.wrtl.org/pa/index.html. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions.

Barbara L. Lyons

Executive Director

Wisconsin Right to Life

www.wrtl.org/blog

Pro-lifers, read the arguments on both sides.  But what is telling is that WRTL does not offer any alternative, nothing, as to how we could grant the unborn legal protection under law.  I think the WRTL argument is weak, and saying that it would "cost too much" to enact?  If it worked, ....wouldn't the money be worth it? 

I've said it before, I'm on the outside looking in, but from where I sit, the "Right to Life" organizations in the US seem to be more worried about the fact Personhood could infringe on contraceptive methods which also cause abortions. 

The short explaination:

Our proposed personhood amendment is not intended, or worded, as a challenge to Roe, or as an attempt to define personhood under the 14th Amendment. It seeks only to bring into the Wisconsin constitution a true definition of human life as endorsed by Wisconsin citizens speaking through the amendment process. We recognize that its protections cannot be fully effective as long as Roe remains law, but we believe a proper definition of personhood should be in place should Wisconsin be freed from the effects of that noxious decision.

PLW does not believe, nor does it expect legislators to believe, that an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution can remedy the federal tyranny of Roe v. Wade and its pernicious progeny. Still, Wisconsin can honestly state its intention to guard the humanity of all its citizens, including the pre-born, should that be made possible by the reversal of Roe. That is the purpose of our personhood amendment. The foregoing speculations are based on the inapplicable assumption that a personhood amendment challenges or conflicts with existing federal law based on Roe v. Wade. Again, PLW’s personhood amendment accepts Roe as a given, so its definition of personhood cannot be viewed as contravening Roe. No one could attack the amendment based on their rights under Roe.

 For more details check out this Pro-Life Wisconsin doc, or check out the new Personhood Wisconsin website.

Esenburg: Why WRTL cannot be charged

What I was concerned with is whether WRTL could be said to have given out these gift cards (or, if you prefer, offered the gift cards) to an elector or any other person as an inducement to get an elector to vote or refrain from voting.

The problem that I see with application of the statute to WRTL is that the gift cards were offered or given not as an inducement to vote but as an inducement for people to get others to apply for absentee ballots. Even if we can characterize the latter as trying to get people to vote, this is a huge distinction. Here's why.

Tom wants to read the statute to say that it is unlawful to offer a thing of value to a person in order to induce that person to persuade another to vote. This is not what the law says. In fact, if we were read the statute in the way that Mr. Foley wants, it would apply to any compensated "get out the vote" effort. If a political party or a candidate or even the League of Women Voters pays people to encourage or facilitate voting, they will have violated the statute. Not only is that a nonsensical reading of the statute (the law can be an ass but it usually isn't), it is a reading that would place it in dire constitutional jeopardy. The freedom of association involves, I think, the right to organize to get out the vote including paying the organizers.

the whole thing at Shark and Shepard

Milwaukee DA investigating Wisconsin Right to Life for voter bribery

Milwaukee County prosecutors have opened a John Doe investigation into voter bribery allegations stemming from last month's state Senate recall elections, according to sources.

Details of the secret investigation are sketchy, but it is clear the Milwaukee County district attorney's office is investigating charges that Wisconsin Right to Life offered rewards for volunteers who signed up sympathetic voters in the recall races. Several people familiar with the investigation said subpoenas were being distributed "like candy."

Prosecutors had earlier acknowledged that they also were looking into complaints about get-out-the-vote block parties sponsored by a liberal group, Wisconsin Jobs Now.

But Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, who investigates election law violations, now won't discuss either matter.

"Absolutely no comment," Landgraf said.

This comes on top of the yearlong John Doe investigation into possible political activity by former and current aides to Gov. Scott Walker.

That secret investigation burst into the public this month when a dozen FBI agents and other law enforcement officers raided the Madison home of Cindy Archer, a top official with Walker at the state and county. Then came word last week that Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie and two others had been granted immunity to testify in the investigation.

John Doe investigations are secret proceedings in which witnesses can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify under oath about potential criminal matters and are forbidden to talk publicly about the case.

How seriously do people take these prohibitions?

Just look at the reactions of those with Wisconsin Right to Life when asked whether they had been contacted in the John Doe investigation.

"Are you trying to get me in trouble?" bellowed James Bopp, an Indiana attorney representing the group opposed to abortion rights. Bopp repeatedly declared it "wrong" for No Quarter to ask about the John Doe proceeding and hung up.

Barbara Lyons, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, was a little more civil but equally tight-lipped.

"I'm not going to comment on anything you ask," Lyons said in a recent interview.

continue at MJS

Something tells me that WRTL has never played poker before.  I mean, what ever happened to "no comment?"  Even if the organization is found not guilty, doesn't a panicked response make you think they might be just a weeee bit worried they did something wrong?  I mean how about "we are cooperating completely with the investigation" or "we trust that the DA will find we did nothing unlawful."  Or how about "bellowing" "Are you trying to get me in trouble?"  Ummm, I hope you have an ace up your sleeve.

We've hit the big time now...

The BC quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Wisconsin Right to Life sent an email to supporters Tuesday telling them a so-called personhood amendment to the state constitution is "wrong for Wisconsin."

An amendment to grant personhood to unborn children would be risky and would not provide "permanent protection" for unborn children, says the email, which links to a video that lists other reasons to oppose such an amendment.

The Badger Catholic Blogger says Wisconsin Right to Life sent a letter to state lawmakers last month saying Rep. Andre Jacque (R-Bellevue) is considering proposing such an amendment and that the organization would oppose it [and actively lobby against personhood... should be interesting, falling in step with Planned Parenthood and NARAL].

Deanna Favre to headline event for Mississippi Personhood Amendment

Considering everything [and this and this and... well, you get the point] going on in Wisconsin regarding personhood, the personhood movement in Mississippi is an interesting contrast. Personhood in Mississippi might actually pass, according to the organizers. And then, I don't know, the child in the womb actually has RIGHTS? Isn't that what we're all here for, not for who gets credit or who comes up with the right strategy or who gets news coverage, but for the protection of ALL the preborn?

From Pro-Life Wisconsin:

The two Republican gubernatorial candidates in Mississippi have pledged their strong support for a personhood constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot this November. Amendment 26, the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, defines the words “person” and “persons,” as used in the state constitution, to “include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” Click on the “Yes on 26” website to learn more about the Mississippi personhood campaign.

Current Lt. Governor and Republican candidate for Governor Phil Bryant has supported the personhood amendment drive from its inception, which helped tremendously in the signature gathering stage of this grassroots effort. In February 2010, Personhood Mississippi submitted over 130,000 signatures — 40,000 more than required for ballot access.

At a press conference in June accepting his endorsement by Mississippi Right to Life, Bryant stated, “I also want to encourage everyone to support the Personhood Amendment that will be on the ballot in November. If successful on the ballot, the Personhood Amendment will be a turning point for protecting the unborn in Mississippi.”

Gulfport businessman Dave Dennis, Bryant’s Republican primary opponent, also supports the Amendment 26 campaign. “I believe as our Founding Fathers believed that we are endowed by our Creator ‘with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,’” stated Dennis. “I am fully pro-life and oppose abortion. I favor the Personhood Initiative to put a strong pro-life issue on the ballot in November.”

A Yes on 26 campaign kickoff event will be held this week featuring former presidential candidate and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee as keynote speaker and special guest Deanna Favre.

WRTL sends opposition to Personhood to all Wisconsin legislators

Last week Wisconsin Right to Life dropped off a letter at all the legislators’ offices in Madison about any potential Personhood amendment (which hasn’t even been introduced as of this point in time).  The first page is their letter and pages 2-3 is their analysis. This is a little surprising since there's no bill and no discussion at this time.  It would seem that WRTL feels they have a very weak argument legally and wouldn't be as persuasive once all their concerns are answered.  I've read both sides.  It is becoming apparent that any legislation that could infringe on any form of contraception(which can cause abortion) will be staunchly opposed by WRTL.  By the way, officially WRTL teaches that any connection between contraception and abortion is "speculation."

Wisconsin Right to Life views the idea that the pill causes abortions as "speculation," according to executive director Barbara Lyons.

There is a place for groups like WRTL, and I mean that.  Politics is a tricky game.  When Protestant groups first began supporting contraception in the 1930s(and a very limited support at that), it left a rift there for future generations of Christians who would never be taught what a natural marriage really is.  Certainly they should still be given a voice in the pro-life movement without having to contradict what their own denomination teaches on the matter.  I know, there are good people involved with Wisconsin Right to Life. But all of that said, there is nothing more scandalous than hearing that Catholic dioceses in this state take direction from and fund raise for Wisconsin Right to Life.  We have been given Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae(The Gospel of Life).  We can't simply reject Church teaching because we might score some token political points.  Christ's Church has a plan not just for how we personally must act, but how laws and society should reflect that plan. 

Do you really believe abortion can totally and completely be defeated in our lifetime?  If not, you should find another movement.  If so, then how will you do it?  Compromising the Gospel of Life is admitting defeat.  Supporters of Wisconsin Right to Life, consider contacting the home office and ask them to reconsider their position on this important legislation, and ask what their alternative plan is for defeating abortion in Wisconsin. 



WRTL Opposes Person Hood