Greg Bales

When Life Begins is Clearly Up to the Legislatures to Decide

In 2008, after two years of failing to make a child organically, we learned the doom Kathy had already been feeling for more than a year was justified: I was diagnosed with male-factor infertility. Our only real chance to move forward would be in vitro fertilization. We couldn’t afford it; we couldn’t afford not to do it. One way we tried to work through that diagnosis, our anger, and our options was to start a secret infertility blog, “Less Than a Million.” This post and what comments from 2008 that are attached to it come from that blog.—gb

Colorado’s proposed constitutional amendment to extend rights to embryos has now been endorsed by Mike Huckabee, who seems to be doing everything in his power to make me glad I no longer call Arkansas home. I get that the amendment is primarily an anti-abortion Trojan horse, but I am really curious how Colorado would create working policy if the law actually passed. There would certainly be a push to prosecute abortion doctors and, perhaps, to arrest or fine women who seek abortions. But there are others who would be affected by the law. For example, what about the fertility clinics that bank frozen embryos? Will Colorado extend protection to the clinics in order to prevent lawsuits that charge the clinics with unlawful detention? Will Colorado ban genetic testing of embryos or amniotic tests of fetuses because the procedures could represent illegal searches of autonomous citizens? Finally, if the state extends citizenship to embryos, then how does that not complicate age-specific laws? In other words, if personhood begins at conception, is there any good argument for starting another counter at birth to determines when someone could vote, have sex, or drink alcohol? I am sure there are good reasons to excuse all of my questions from the purview of the law; if so, I would love to hear them.

Update: Obviously, this is relevant.