Amendment 62

CRTL Banquet - October 2, 2010



Or call Colorado Right To Life at 303-753-9394.

Previous CRTL Speakers have included:
- Dr. Alan Keyes
- Lila Rose
- Gianna Jessen

"Birth" Control Talking Points

Objection: "Personhood will ban common forms of birth control."

A Personhood amendment will not ban any true contraceptives that only prevent fertilization. And tragically, abortion is used as a common form of birth control. Regarding "contraceptives" that actually cause an abortion:

1. Lies: Women have been lied to by not telling them that some birth control actually kills their child.
2. Steroids
: The pill and Plan B are steroids that we protect football players from yet give to young girls.
3. Cancer
: A Nat'l Cancer Institute researcher reports the pill as a significant risk factor for breast cancer.

Beginning of Biological Development

Amendment 62 Co-Sponsors
Colorado's Legislative Council's False Claim
re: Beginning of Biological Development

[The Colorado state government has mailed its biased "Blue Book" to millions of voters, analyzing the 2010 ballot including Amendment 62. Colorado RTL with our Amendment 62 co-sponsor is suing requesting the state mail an addendum to each voter, but in the meanting, you can avoid the government bias and see

CRTL has tried for months to get the legislature's council to correct significant misinformation that they have disseminated, at great tax-payer expense no less. Aside from claiming that personhood will "limit treatment for miscarriages," they also claim that "the beginning of biological development" is not a scientifically recognized concept. What? Is there suddenly an alternative theory of the beginning of an organism's biological life that they're keeping secret? The following excerpt is taken from the official A62 Sponsors' Blue Book Input.]

Preliminary Comment on Beginning of Biological Development: The Legislative Council has persisted in claiming against all scientific and medical research and common usage of English grammar that the phrase "the beginning of biological development," is "a term which is not defined… and is not an accepted medical or scientific term." So prior to presenting our answers to the council's thirteen questions, we're summarizing references that address this matter first, for both sexual (fertilization) and asexual (twinning, cloning, etc.) human reproduction.



The following scientific references are provided by medical ethicist Dr. Prof. Dianne N. Irving of Georgetown University who herself writes herein, "Scientifically, the term 'embryo' as it refers to the sexually reproduced single-cell human embryo should apply from the biological beginning of that human organism, i.e., at the beginning of the process of fertilization or first contact of the sperm with the oocyte (as documented by Carnegie Stage 1)":

Carnegie Stage 1 Definition: Embryonic life commences with fertilization, and hence the beginning of that process may be taken as the point de depart of stage 1.  Despite the small size (ca. 0.1 mm) and weight (ca. 0.004 mg) of the organism at fertilization, the embryo is "schon ein individual-spezifischer Mensch"  (Blechschmidt, 1972). ... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with an oocyte or its investments and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote (Brackett et al., 1972).  Fertilization sensu stricto involves the union of developmentally competent gametes realized in an appropriate environment to result in the formation of a viable embryo (Tesarik, 1986) ... .  Fertilization requires probably slightly longer than 24 hours in primates (Brackett et al., 1972).  In the case of human oocytes fertilized in vitro, pronuclei were formed within 11 hours of insemination (Edwards, 1972).  ... Fertilization, which takes place normally in the ampulla of the uterine tube, includes (a) contact of spermatozoa with the zona pellucida of an oocyte, penetration of one or more spermatozoa through the zona pellucida and the ooplasm, swelling of the spermatozoal head and extrusion of the second polar body, (b) the formation of the male and female pronuclei, and (c) the beginning of the first mitotic division, or cleavage, of the zygote.  ... The three phases (a, b, and c) referred to above will be included here under stage 1, the characteristic feature of which is unicellularity. ...    [Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development, Stage 1, at:] (emphases added)

Personhood Wins Big in Colo Primaries

Ed Hanks’ Analysis of Colo GOP Primary

[Update on Tambor Williams: See the CRTL Report, Tambor Williams is Not Pro-life, on Dan Maes' tragic choice for Lt. Governor.]

Full article is at Ed's pro-personhood blog Excerpts:

[Update on Ken Buck: Buck has already broken all his pro-life campaign promises. As the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate:
- Buck now says he will not vote for Amendment 62
- Buck now says he will not introduce an abortion ban
- Buck now says he will vote to confirm PRO-CHOICE judges to the federal bench, judges who will issue opinions to continue systematic child killing, whom Buck will put on the bench for life time terms
He's buckled already, and all he's had to face is the abortion lobby and a girly man like Michael Bennett who argues against unborn children and that America should support killing them. God forbid that Buck ever makes it to Washington with pro-life support, because as surely as the sun sets in the evening, Buck would cave and vote to confirm a "pro-choice" judge who could be on the bench for forty years fighting to keep child killing "legal." In that situation, Buck's hands would be stained by the blood of every child murdered with his support. The least of Ken Buck's worries is that his opponent is running attack ads against him. His greatest worry should be what God thinks, and how history will view him, as it now views all the political cowards who compromised on the slave trade and the Holocaust. If Buck had wisdom, he would be thanking the pro-lifers who are exposing him now, before it is too late, for him. Ducking for cover Buck now is even hiding behind Eagle Forum and their misrepresentation of pro-life strategy (see that]

Jane Norton had endorsed Personhood... but on her website she endorsed abortion in cases of rape and incest, which is a stand entirely opposed to the concept of Personhood. [So her defeat was a victory for the pro-life voters who are teaching people that there are no "exceptions" to the God-given right to life.]

Americans United for Life... had endorsed Jane Norton. That was the first endorsement of any candidate that organization had made in four decades [CRTL: although because of a supreme court ruling now permitting them to do so]. Why did they endorse her? Because of Colorado Right to Life and the Personhood movement! AUL realized that if the winner of the primary for the U.S. Senate was a candidate who supported the Personhood strategy, instead of their compromised regulation strategy, it would be the beginning of the end for their control over the regulatory process... Why prefer a candidate with exceptions over a candidate who would protect the life of the unborn from conception forward -- NO exceptions?  Americans United for Life endorsed Jane Norton specifically because she wasn't 100% pro-life!  This was a key race for them... and they lost. Personhood won.

Another key victory was in the Governor’s race, where we now know there will be two candidates on the November ballot who support Personhood – Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo.  Scott McInnis... there were always doubts on our side...

Overall, 11 out of 19 Republicans running for the State Senate this year are pro-Personhood, and there may be more we don’t know about, or who will sign on later. And in the House, 17 out of 65 candidates are on record as supporting Personhood, but probably twice that actually do, and just haven’t gone on record...

CRTL 2010 Candidate Survey

Please consider your responses to the questions below and then mail your answers back to us at 1535 Grant Street, Suite 303, 80203 or e-mail the completed form to Both, during the primary and during the general election campaign, we will mail voter guides out to registered pro-lifers and post the results of our candidate questionnaires online at

Personhood Campaign Talking Points

Personhood Amendment 62 Talking Points

Persons not Property: Please vote YES on Colorado's Personhood Amendment because then: “. . . the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” (actual wording)

Snowflake girlSnowflake Children: This baby girl was adopted, like all the snowflake kids, as a frozen embryo. A snowflake child is one of the strongest proofs that the single-celled human is a person. Little Elisha Lancaster, frozen for years, appears in an online Amendment 62 video with her mom Maria. Elisha was fully alive, fully human, and not a boy but already a little girl, at the very moment that she came into existence in a laboratory. Then, four years later, this tiny person was adopted, Federal Expressed across the country, and implanted in mom’s womb.

Will the Personhood Amendment Stop Abortion? Our law prohibits the intentional killing of an innocent person. So yes, the illegality and unconstitutionality of abortion will finally be evident. What about Roe? See Dred and Roe v. Wade below.

Isn’t It Part of the Woman’s Body? Half the time the fetus is a boy. Always the mother is female. Her son’s Y chromosome cannot be part of mom. He’s a genetically distinct individual. And whether it’s a baby boy or girl, the baby is not the woman’s body, but has his or her own body within mom. The unborn baby’s first cry for food is actually a pheromone signal, from one organism to another. A hormone is a chemical signal between organs within an organism, but the baby’s request is a human pheromone. So while still traveling toward the womb, the fetal cry lets mom know the baby’s already hungry!

Syndicate content