Definition of Insanity

Back in May, Chantal Hébert predicted that the failure of Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312, would be a 'crushing defeat to the anti-abortion cause'.

Not if events in Colorado are any guide.

We remember Colorado, don't we? Where twice so-called personhood initiatives have suffered what any sane person would call 'crushing' defeats -- like 3 to 1 votes against?

The monomaniacs are at it again only this time they failed to get the required number of valid signatures to put the initiative on the November ballot.

(One reason that Colorado keeps getting targetted, I learned, is that the required number for such a ploy is relatively low, compared to other states. Personhood failed in ultra-conservative Mississippi by a majority of 55 per cent in 2010. Surely, it can't be good for the cause to continue to get stomped by such wide margins in a more liberal state like Colorado? But then, as the M312 fiasco here has demonstrated again, intelligence is NOT fetus fetishists' strong suit.)

They needed 86,105 signatures and submitted 112,121. But a bunch were deemed invalid.

How many were 'invalid'?

The State of Colorado rejected 23,873 signatures as invalid. By my math, that is 21 percent of the signatures.

That's a whack of dishonesty and/or incompetence. Or, of course, both.

And a look at the actual text of the amendment reveals more of the usual chicanery.

The amendment’s text would make it illegal to intentionally kill “any innocent person”—with “person” defined as “every human being regardless of the method of creation,” and “human being” defined as “a member of the species homo sapien[s] at any stage of development.”

But the proposed text doesn’t define what to my theological ears is the more provocative term: “innocent.” 

Presumably, its use here is meant to do several things: (1) portray the fetus as an agent with moral standing, one in need of protection; (2) allow for the taking of guilty human life (since many social conservatives support the death penalty while also being opposed to abortion); and (3) contrast the innocence of the fetus with the guilt of the father. Indeed, on the last point, the amendment draws this contrast specifically: “No innocent child created through rape or incest shall be killed for the crime of his or her father.” 

But notice, where rape and incest are concerned, it is only the fetus’ innocence that’s stipulated.

They've gotten around any difficulties with the death penalty but kinda left somebody out of this careful moral balance, haven't they?

As per fucking usual, the woman is nowhere to be found.

Well, as we now know from wingnut science, if a woman gets pregnant from rape, it wasn't a legitimate rape. She must have enjoyed it, at least a little, eh?

Now that they've lost three times -- twice in thundering electoral failures, once caught in flimflammery -- they'll give up, right?

Nope.

Personhood USA vowed to fight the Colorado rejection in court. The group argues some of the signatures were improperly rejected, including some on which a notary public changed a date.

"We are going to be filing to have those ballot signatures recounted, and we are confident personhood will be on ballots this fall," Mason said.

To those of us who've been thinking that a MASSIVE defeat on Woodworth's Wank will shut our fetus fetishists up for a while, I have three words: Not bloody likely.

Reminder: the final hour of debate on M312 is scheduled for September 21, with the vote on September 26. If you haven't already done so, shoot your MP a little note about how you'd like her or him to vote.