California Definition of Person Amendment (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 07:18, 18 March 2014 by JerrickA (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
A California Definition of Person Amendment (09-0043) was filed with California election officials in September 2009 by supporters who hoped to qualify it for the November 2, 2010 ballot. However, supporters announced in late April 2010 that their efforts had fallen short.[1]

On September 28, 2009, Walter Hoye, Jason Jones, Lila Rose and Leo Severino filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title on the proposed amendment, which they call the California Human Rights Amendment.

The petition was cleared for circulation with a deadline of April 29, 2010.

The goal of the proposed act was to amend Article I of the California Constitution to define the legal concept of "person." Specifically, the proposal is to add a new Section 7(c) that would say, "For the purpose of this section: The term "person" applies to all living human organisms from the beginning of their biological development -- regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability."

Voting on Abortion
Abortion.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

Text of measure

Ballot title

The proposed ballot title was:

Changes Constitutional Definition of a Person to Include Fertilized Human Eggs. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[2]

Ballot summary

The proposed ballot summary was:

Extends constitutional protections of due process and equal protection to all fertilized human eggs by redefining "person" as including each and every human organism from the commencement of biological development.[2]

Fiscal impact

The statement of estimated fiscal impact was:

Potential increased costs for courts, law enforcement, and other agencies for criminal and civil proceedings. Potential costs and savings for health and social services programs if the courts determined that the measure restricts access to some types of birth control methods. Potential loss of state or local revenues due to reduced research activity that may be offset by reduced state spending on research. Unknown potential effects on state and local health care expenditures due to changes that may occur in medical practices.[2]

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Additional reading

References

  1. LifeNews.com "California Personhood Amendment on Abortion Fails to Qualify for 2010 Ballot," April 28, 2010
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.