You would think that would be the end of it.

The anti-women brigade is nothing if not tenacious. They have managed to get a similar measure on the ballot this year. This time, it’s known as Amendment 62. The wording is also altered slightly, in order to obscure the point of the amendment itself. Instead of referring to zygotes as persons “from the moment of conception”, it now refers to zygotes (again) as persons “from the moment of biological development”. In the amendment there is no actual definition of what “biological development” means.

The intended effect, as was the intended effect of Amendment 48, is to ban abortions in our state, without exception; to outlaw any form of oral birth control, including Plan B and/or other emergency contraceptives; and to hold women criminally liable for miscarriages; and banning in vitro fertilization, among other things. In short, forcing complete control by the state over a woman’s reproductive health. Period. No more exceptions for rape, incest, or a woman’s physical health.

The message is clear: if you are a woman of childbearing age (let’s face it, somebody old enough to have a menstrual period), a zygote is more important than you.

Take some time to read the rest of the FAQ at No on 62. Find out what you can do to help. If you live in Colorado, the biggest thing you can do is to either send in your mail-in ballot or get out there on Election Day and vote. All this is is Amendment 48 with a different number. Let’s ensure this amendment ends up the same way that did.

ETA: There was a rally at the state Capitol on Tuesday to kick off the No on 62 campaign. Sadly, I was on the phone with my insurance company for most of the day.

ETA: There was at least one comment that got caught up in my “toss the spam” rush. I think one started out “Thanks for your support of Amendment 62″? I’m hopping it was “No on 62″ – but could you submit your comment again? I’m really sorry…

This is kind of a late entry for Blog For Choice 2010. I hope you’ll take a look at it anyway.

Today, January 22nd, is the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal in the US. every year, Blog for Choice has a different topic. This year’s topic is:

In honor of Dr. George Tiller, who often wore a button that simply read, “Trust Women,” this year’s Blog for Choice question is:

What does Trust Women mean to you?

Trust Women means just that. Women are the ones who carry a child for 9 months, more or less. Women normally bear the primary responsibility of caring for that child (or children) after they’re born. Women should be able to know whether or not they want children at all, how many they will have, and how far apart their children (if they want more than one) will be from each other. Sure, a partner can have input, and they really ought to have input. Especially if they’ll be helping to raise that child. But an individual woman knows what will be best for their particular circumstances. Trust women.

Trusting women also means that girls can handle having real, live sex education available; not just “real love waits”, but actual facts about how to prevent pregnancies and STDs. They can. My daughter will be able to handle it when it’s time for that level of information.

Trusting women also means that when people talk about choice, it doesn’t automatically mean abortion. It means that safe, legal abortion should be available as one choice among many. Women know what’s best for us. Let us decide. Instead of deciding for us by removing a choice from consideration; or pushing a single choice to the exclusion of any other.

Trusting women also, at least in my mind, has to do with assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It’s been my experience that the same people who want to make contraception and abortion illegal are just as happy to ban any sort of ART, including in vitro fertilization. There are a lot of things that I want to say about that, and would really love to say about that, but I’ll let that go for today. The decision about whether or not to pursue infertility treatments should be left up to women and their partners. If trusting women means not getting pregnant when one doesn’t want to have children, it should also mean getting pregnant when one wants to have children.

Trusting women means that no matter what the circumstances, women can, and should be able to, decide for themselves what to do next instead of having that choice made for them. Trust women.

From Feministe.

Here’s what the doctor had to say about her continuing the pregnancy:

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the pregnancy, which was in its 15th week, posed a serious risk to the girl, who weighs 80 pounds.

And here’s what the archdiocese of two regions in northeastern Brazil had to say:

But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a Caesarean section. “It’s the law of God: Do not kill,” he said in comments reported by the newspaper O Globo.

The rape victim and her doctor have both been formally excommunicated by the church.

I should say that there are many people whom I love dearly who are religious. I have enormous respect for them, which they have earned from me over the years. I have no respect for a religion that places more value on a group of cells that cannot survive outside their human host than that of a 9 year old rape victim whose life would really be endangered by continuing a pregnancy that resulted from her rape. None. At all. I also have no respect for anyone who would condone the statement and actions of the Church in this instance – or in any instance where they have caused irreparable harm to a child. I would also prefer not to get into a discussion about one needing religion to be a moral human being. Not today, thank you.

I’m not sure if thanks is the right word, but thanks anyway to Pharyngula for the story yesterday. I was too pissed off to write about it immediately.

UPDATE: Apparently everyone involved (except the child and apparently the rapist) have been formally excommunicated by the Brazilian Catholic Church. Very classy.

As Mr. Obama prepared to make his first post-election visit to the White House on Monday, his advisers were compiling a list of policies that could be reversed by the executive powers of the new president. The assessment is under way, aides said, but a full list of policies to be overturned will not be announced by Mr. Obama until he confers with new members of his cabinet.

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for Congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” John D. Podesta, a top transition leader, said Sunday. “He feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.”

The list of executive orders to be “reviewed” is expected to include the “global gag rule”, which prohibits international agencies that support abortion as a means of family planning from receiving US taxpayer money, prohibitions on opening up new lines of stem cells for researchers, and allowing drilling for oil and natural gas in environmentally sensitive areas. Among other things. Ah, it’s a new day…