Consequences of North Dakota Abortion Ban
Personhood Act Affects Additional Health Services
Feb 18, 2009
On February 17, 2009, North Dakota House of Representatives set out to ban abortion and give fertilized eggs full legal rights by passing The Personhood of Children Act. Legislative Assembly House Bill No. 1572 states, "For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens."
While its intent to effectively ban abortion are obvious, there are also consequences to reproductive health services, contraception, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research.
- Reproductive Health Services: The legislation of reproductive and sexual health is dangerous because it effectively makes decisions in the government rather than in the doctor's office. Planned Parenthood has pointed out this bill takes decisions about abortion, contraception, in vitro fertilization, etc. away from women but also away from their doctors. In November, doctors opposed a California consent law because they said it would turn them into police officers rather than caregivers. This bill creates a similar situation where a new legal restriction can determine how a doctor cares for his or her patient based on political rhetoric rather than medical rationale.
- Contraception: If a person is a fertilized egg, what does this mean for contraception that prevents an egg from being fertilized? The birth control pill and emergency contraception are used to prevent the release of eggs - or ovulation - so there is no egg for the sperm to fertilize. Does this mean the egg that has not been released has legal rights because it has the potential for life? Through contraception, is the woman then violating the legal rights of eggs to achieve personhood? Although it is currently a philosophical debate, by giving rights to fertilized eggs it then becomes a legal debate. Do eggs and sperm also have legal rights as potentials for personhood?
- In Vitro Fertilization: Personhood North Dakota claims this bill would not stop in vitro fertilization, but it would prevent the killing of frozen embryos. There have been previous bills in other states that would require women who use in vitro fertilization to carry every fertilized egg to term or to find someone else who would by putting the embryos up for adoption. The problem is that up to 15 eggs can be fertilized in the in vitro process. This could mean choosing between having no children or having a soccer team. Again, this bill places limits on what a doctor and a family can decide.
- Stem Cell Research: Personhood North Dakota claims this bill will not stop stem cell research because scientists can use umbilical cords to obtain embryonic cells. In some sense, this is a moot point. North Dakota prohibits research on a living/non-living embryo or fetus. So while claiming the bill will only prevent the use of aborted fetuses in stem cell research, Personhood North Dakota is only stating the status quo. North Dakota also bans research on cloned embryos.
The largest consequence of this bill is that it is giving other states the precedence to pass their own personhood legislation. Four other states are introducing similar bills: Maryland (HB925), Montana (SB406), South Carolina (H.3526), and Alabama (SB-335). It seems because Colorado's Amendment 48 that would have defined personhood at fertilization was overwhelmingly voted down by voters, other states like North Dakota are attempting to circumvent their constituents. Rather than send the issue of personhood to the voters, the state governments are legislating a woman's right to choose and in doing so having a direct impact on other important aspects of health and medicine.
