<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Colorado&#8217;s &#8220;Personhood Amendment&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/</link>
	<description>News You Can Abuse!</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:34:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Buck</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-12063</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-12063</guid>
		<description>The hate I "spew" Justin, is not towards republicans. It's aimed at dolts.

That would probably explain why you're so bothered by it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The hate I &#8220;spew&#8221; Justin, is not towards republicans. It&#8217;s aimed at dolts.</p>
<p>That would probably explain why you&#8217;re so bothered by it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-12055</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-12055</guid>
		<description>I was glad to see you rip Republicans Buck - proving you aren't one.  When someone spews the hate you have, I always prefer they let everyone know they are not in the same party I am.

Go back and look at your posts.  Try to be objective (I know it will be a huge stretch for you).  Then, think again if its the people you are attacking who are showing ignorance with their comments.

And so you know, this is coming for someone who is on the same side of this amendment as you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was glad to see you rip Republicans Buck - proving you aren&#8217;t one.  When someone spews the hate you have, I always prefer they let everyone know they are not in the same party I am.</p>
<p>Go back and look at your posts.  Try to be objective (I know it will be a huge stretch for you).  Then, think again if its the people you are attacking who are showing ignorance with their comments.</p>
<p>And so you know, this is coming for someone who is on the same side of this amendment as you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amby</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11797</link>
		<dc:creator>Amby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11797</guid>
		<description>The same group of extremist that want to control family rights are the same group that caused mass suicide in South America all in the name of the Fundy God. The same group that allowed over 100 women and children die because Fundy church refused them medical care (Golary barn, IN).
     Now they want to kill women AGAIN in the name of God by not allowing them proper medical care. Women should not have to pay the price with their life because of these extreme religious groups. 
   Vote NO to 48</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The same group of extremist that want to control family rights are the same group that caused mass suicide in South America all in the name of the Fundy God. The same group that allowed over 100 women and children die because Fundy church refused them medical care (Golary barn, IN).<br />
     Now they want to kill women AGAIN in the name of God by not allowing them proper medical care. Women should not have to pay the price with their life because of these extreme religious groups.<br />
   Vote NO to 48</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Riommar</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11625</link>
		<dc:creator>Riommar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11625</guid>
		<description>If 48 passes it will in effect make abortion illegal. In the US abortion is legal (for the moment).  How will amendment 48 stand up to the the supremacy clause of the US Constitution Article VI Clause 2.  This effectively says that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute".  So if 48 passes then it will be Unconstitutional until or if RvW is overturned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If 48 passes it will in effect make abortion illegal. In the US abortion is legal (for the moment).  How will amendment 48 stand up to the the supremacy clause of the US Constitution Article VI Clause 2.  This effectively says that &#8220;a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute&#8221;.  So if 48 passes then it will be Unconstitutional until or if RvW is overturned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buck</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11569</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11569</guid>
		<description>Dave, damn good question.

I'd have to say the "if it's God's will" crowd would let the mother die.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, damn good question.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d have to say the &#8220;if it&#8217;s God&#8217;s will&#8221; crowd would let the mother die.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: daveincolorado</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11558</link>
		<dc:creator>daveincolorado</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:14:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11558</guid>
		<description>and what about ectopic pregnancies where a fertilized embryo grows outside the uterus, but could kill the mother if not diagnosed and treated?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and what about ectopic pregnancies where a fertilized embryo grows outside the uterus, but could kill the mother if not diagnosed and treated?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buck</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11513</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11513</guid>
		<description>Jeremie, "rule of law" isn't in the Constitution either... Is that why so many of you republicans have a problem following it?

This country clearly was founded on the principle of Separation of Church and State. You shouldn't base your facts solely on what Rush Limbaugh or some other moron tells you. Pick up a history book sometime. I promise, you will be enlightened!

Oh abortion, you're right. A woman's right to one is not SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the Constitution. The argument is, a woman has a right to govern over her own body. A man has the right to govern over his too. And that's as it should be. Do your really wants to hand the rights to your own body over to the State? Are you really that stupid?

Jeremie, going back to what we had before Roe v. Wade is simply not an option. Those were not the best of times! (Again, pick up a book. You might have a change of heart!).

But I'm not fond of abortion. I don't know anyone pro-choice that is. It seems neither side wants to get together and work this out. THAT is what I don't understand. Abortion wouldn't even be an issue if they did. It's a case of "all or nothing."

It may be called the Land of the Free... but it's filled with people who spend so much time, energy and money trying to rule over other people. What a fucking joke.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeremie, &#8220;rule of law&#8221; isn&#8217;t in the Constitution either&#8230; Is that why so many of you republicans have a problem following it?</p>
<p>This country clearly was founded on the principle of Separation of Church and State. You shouldn&#8217;t base your facts solely on what Rush Limbaugh or some other moron tells you. Pick up a history book sometime. I promise, you will be enlightened!</p>
<p>Oh abortion, you&#8217;re right. A woman&#8217;s right to one is not SPECIFICALLY spelled out in the Constitution. The argument is, a woman has a right to govern over her own body. A man has the right to govern over his too. And that&#8217;s as it should be. Do your really wants to hand the rights to your own body over to the State? Are you really that stupid?</p>
<p>Jeremie, going back to what we had before Roe v. Wade is simply not an option. Those were not the best of times! (Again, pick up a book. You might have a change of heart!).</p>
<p>But I&#8217;m not fond of abortion. I don&#8217;t know anyone pro-choice that is. It seems neither side wants to get together and work this out. THAT is what I don&#8217;t understand. Abortion wouldn&#8217;t even be an issue if they did. It&#8217;s a case of &#8220;all or nothing.&#8221;</p>
<p>It may be called the Land of the Free&#8230; but it&#8217;s filled with people who spend so much time, energy and money trying to rule over other people. What a fucking joke.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremie</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11510</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:22:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11510</guid>
		<description>There's nowhere in the U.S. Constitution that says a female has the right to control her own body.  It does say that one has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Those are our rights along with the bill of rights.  A woman's right to choose and the separation of church state are NOT in the U.S. Constitution.  Because a judge made a bad decision on a law you think you have the right to kill an unborn (or born in Illinois cases) child.  Well I'm sorry but you are sadly mistaken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s nowhere in the U.S. Constitution that says a female has the right to control her own body.  It does say that one has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Those are our rights along with the bill of rights.  A woman&#8217;s right to choose and the separation of church state are NOT in the U.S. Constitution.  Because a judge made a bad decision on a law you think you have the right to kill an unborn (or born in Illinois cases) child.  Well I&#8217;m sorry but you are sadly mistaken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ralph</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11471</link>
		<dc:creator>Ralph</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11471</guid>
		<description>The leader of this movement is Bob Enyart. He is on the radio in Denver and he was the main person behind this bill. He loves to protest. I say we reverse the role and protest him. He lives in Arvada, Colorado. Get people together and protest in front of his home. This guy has a dirty past:

He's on his third marriage
He committed adultery on both his former wives
He was seeing a prostitute while married with children
After caught with a prostitute, he continued seeing her
He has been convicted of child abuse. He beat his girlfriends son (he's now married to her)
He frequented strip bars while married with children

http://www.westword.com/1999-12-16/news/thank-god-for-bob/

Go to his house with protest signs that call him out on his adultery. 
"Bob is an adulterer"
"Bob is a child abuser"
"Bob loves to commit adultery"

Call this guy out for who he really is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The leader of this movement is Bob Enyart. He is on the radio in Denver and he was the main person behind this bill. He loves to protest. I say we reverse the role and protest him. He lives in Arvada, Colorado. Get people together and protest in front of his home. This guy has a dirty past:</p>
<p>He&#8217;s on his third marriage<br />
He committed adultery on both his former wives<br />
He was seeing a prostitute while married with children<br />
After caught with a prostitute, he continued seeing her<br />
He has been convicted of child abuse. He beat his girlfriends son (he&#8217;s now married to her)<br />
He frequented strip bars while married with children</p>
<p><a href="http://www.westword.com/1999-12-16/news/thank-god-for-bob/" rel="nofollow">http://www.westword.com/1999-1.....d-for-bob/</a></p>
<p>Go to his house with protest signs that call him out on his adultery.<br />
&#8220;Bob is an adulterer&#8221;<br />
&#8220;Bob is a child abuser&#8221;<br />
&#8220;Bob loves to commit adultery&#8221;</p>
<p>Call this guy out for who he really is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buck</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11232</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11232</guid>
		<description>Joe, good question!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe, good question!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11231</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11231</guid>
		<description>If a woman has sex then who is to check if there was a fertilized egg that did not adhere to the uterus? Would the woman be committting murder?  It is interesting that the Arch Bishop or Focus-on-the-Family do not officially endorse the passage!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a woman has sex then who is to check if there was a fertilized egg that did not adhere to the uterus? Would the woman be committting murder?  It is interesting that the Arch Bishop or Focus-on-the-Family do not officially endorse the passage!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buck</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11015</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:38:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11015</guid>
		<description>Ryan, thank you for commenting and telling your side of the story. I never even considered your position.

And a big &lt;strong&gt;Congrats!&lt;/strong&gt; to you and your wife. You certainly have been blessed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ryan, thank you for commenting and telling your side of the story. I never even considered your position.</p>
<p>And a big <strong>Congrats!</strong> to you and your wife. You certainly have been blessed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-11011</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-11011</guid>
		<description>Regardless of where you stand on abortion issues, my personal issue with this amendment comes from experience, in that my wife and I had our beautiful daughter Claire through in vitro fertilization (IVF) just about two years ago.  Previously however, we struggled and suffered with infertility for more than seven years.  Several previous attempts at IVF failed, and we were becoming convinced that we would not be able to have a child together.  More than just about anything in the world, my wife and I wanted a family. It was extremely disappointing to us.  

Luckily, through perseverance, many injections of progesterone, and just good old true grit, we received news that she became pregnant, and we now have a beautiful daughter, who is the absolute light of our lives.  

My deep concern is that giving a microscopic embryo constitutional rights would limit or prohibit families who are currently in the situation my wife and I were in and not allow them to receive this type of treatment (IVF) as a family-building option.  As the embryo would potentially be placed at risk during the procedure, this could mean that couples who are simply attempting to have a family could be committing instead what would be a criminal violation.

By the same token, we also have remaining frozen embryos in the event that we'd like to continue having children.  What would become of them?  A friend who also went through IVF and also has extra embryos that are frozen asked me, "If I don't pay the bill to keep them frozen, does that mean I go to jail?"  It's a completely absurd question, and it sounds somewhat ridiculous, but the more I thought about it, the more concerned I became about this amendment and its far-reaching implications.

Let's keep all assisted reproductive technology options on the table so that those who experience infertility can have a shot a building their own families.

For my part, I will be voting NO on Amendment 48, and I urge all Colorado voters to do the same!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regardless of where you stand on abortion issues, my personal issue with this amendment comes from experience, in that my wife and I had our beautiful daughter Claire through in vitro fertilization (IVF) just about two years ago.  Previously however, we struggled and suffered with infertility for more than seven years.  Several previous attempts at IVF failed, and we were becoming convinced that we would not be able to have a child together.  More than just about anything in the world, my wife and I wanted a family. It was extremely disappointing to us.  </p>
<p>Luckily, through perseverance, many injections of progesterone, and just good old true grit, we received news that she became pregnant, and we now have a beautiful daughter, who is the absolute light of our lives.  </p>
<p>My deep concern is that giving a microscopic embryo constitutional rights would limit or prohibit families who are currently in the situation my wife and I were in and not allow them to receive this type of treatment (IVF) as a family-building option.  As the embryo would potentially be placed at risk during the procedure, this could mean that couples who are simply attempting to have a family could be committing instead what would be a criminal violation.</p>
<p>By the same token, we also have remaining frozen embryos in the event that we&#8217;d like to continue having children.  What would become of them?  A friend who also went through IVF and also has extra embryos that are frozen asked me, &#8220;If I don&#8217;t pay the bill to keep them frozen, does that mean I go to jail?&#8221;  It&#8217;s a completely absurd question, and it sounds somewhat ridiculous, but the more I thought about it, the more concerned I became about this amendment and its far-reaching implications.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s keep all assisted reproductive technology options on the table so that those who experience infertility can have a shot a building their own families.</p>
<p>For my part, I will be voting NO on Amendment 48, and I urge all Colorado voters to do the same!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buck</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-10932</link>
		<dc:creator>Buck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-10932</guid>
		<description>Kevin, that was very well put.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin, that was very well put.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://blueherald.com/2008/06/colorados-personhood-amenment/#comment-10931</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blueherald.com/?p=8403#comment-10931</guid>
		<description>Anti-abortion beliefs and laws don’t reflect a “pro life” philosophy; they reflect a “forced birth” or “coerced birth” philosophy in their denial of a female’s right to control her body and, therefore, her personal destiny. 

We would do well to consider that instead of referring to the point of view that a woman should not have the right to choose as “anti-abortion,” it would be more accurate the refer to it as “forced or coerced birth.”  This change in terminology exposes the lie of passive opposition to a woman’s right to choose and actively describes and assigns responsibility for the intentional violation of a woman’s right to control her own life and body.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anti-abortion beliefs and laws don’t reflect a “pro life” philosophy; they reflect a “forced birth” or “coerced birth” philosophy in their denial of a female’s right to control her body and, therefore, her personal destiny. </p>
<p>We would do well to consider that instead of referring to the point of view that a woman should not have the right to choose as “anti-abortion,” it would be more accurate the refer to it as “forced or coerced birth.”  This change in terminology exposes the lie of passive opposition to a woman’s right to choose and actively describes and assigns responsibility for the intentional violation of a woman’s right to control her own life and body.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.254 seconds -->
