Personhood Amendment reboot Q&A with Kristi Burton Brown, face of original 2008 campaign

By Michael Roberts Mon., Nov. 28 2011 at 9:04 AM

Kristi Burton Brown.

The so-called Personhood Amendment, which holds that the term "person" applies to humans from their biological starting point, failed in Colorado in 2008 and 2010 -- but last week, organizers filed new language with the goal of putting the measure on the 2012 ballot. What will be different this time around? To find out, we contacted Kristi Burton Brown, the face of the 2008 amendment, who's deeply involved this time around.

Here's a Q&A with Brown, conducted via e-mail.

Westword (Michael Roberts): You were at the center of the 2008 campaign, but in 2010, you played less of a public role. You appear to be stepping back into the spotlight this year. Is that the case? And if so, why did you decide to do so?

Kristi Burton Brown circa 2008.

Kristi Burton Brown: During the 2010 campaign, I got married, finished law school, passed the Bar, and had a baby. So, while I supported that campaign, you could say I was a little busy =). This year, I, together with Gualberto Garcia Jones, wrote the new language. I'm also planning to serve on the Steering Committee as a Legal Advisor. I will certainly be available to debate and talk to the media throughout the campaign. I want to be a part of the 2010 campaign because protecting innocent life is an issue close to my heart and I love speaking the truth publicly so that others can make the choice for life as well.

WW: The amendment didn't garner a great deal more support in 2010 than in 2008. Why do you think it will be more successful in 2012?

KBB: According to the numbers that have been crunched, Gualberto Garcia Jones informs me that the Personhood Amendment gained 50,000 new votes in 2010... Every time truth is put before the voters, more of them are persuaded. I would point to the issue of women's suffrage as an example. In South Dakota, women's right to vote was on the ballot seven times before they succeeded in winning equal rights for all people. Winning the equal right to life for all persons is our goal here, and I believe the people of Colorado will increasingly want to protect all people.

WW: The failure of a Personhood Amendment in Mississippi has been portrayed by progressive commentators as proof that it won't succeed anywhere. Is that a logical fallacy in your viewpoint? if so, why?

KBB: I don't personally believe that Mississippi has the corner on pro-life people. While Mississippians, along with many Southerners, are statistically the most pro-life, I think a victory on Personhood simply requires people who are willing to choose to protect every person, regardless of age, level of development, or status. That could happen anywhere in America, including in Colorado. Commentators often neglect to believe in the power of truth to change people's minds and hearts. They forget about the good hearts of all Americans who want to defend innocent life.

Page down to continue reading the Kristi Burton Brown Q&A.

Tags:

Kristi Burton Brown, Personhood Amendment

We Recommend

guest

"Intentional killing" is already against the law.

You might want to tell Mrs. New-Lawyer that adding smiley faces and "lol" to her responses makes her look like a backwoods retard.

Just sayin.

jane d0e

Why can't this brand of moral propaganda be put to bed once and for all? I am personally tired of this crap. I'm also tired of showing up at the polls time and time again, specifically to vote against any and all of these initiatives, but I will continue to do so. Who is this lady to judge whomever may or may not be "innocent". This has nothing to do with "innocence". The language being used here, and the proposal in its entirety is even worse than the first 2 tries because: it panders to an indefinite sentimentality; and the issue of "personhood" is not only not up for debate~ it's already written in as a given.

Also, there is certainly a difference between killing and murder, and evidently this is beyond the comprehension of those supporting the pro-life agenda.

Michael Roberts

Strong post, Jane -- one we're going to make an upcoming Comment of the Day. Congrats.

Eric

The worst nightmare for the personhood cottage industry would be for legislation banning choice.

The donations would dry up. This issue is a double win for conservatve politicians, a legitimate cash cow that at the same time draws out one issue voters, many of which don't vote unless the "gays, guns, and God" issues are on the ballot, and will vote republican while they're there.

The thing to remember about the personhood amendment promoters is that it's not about the baby, far from it, but rather about cash and getting out the vote. Cold, calculating political strategy that should curl your hair.

Michael Roberts

Strong take, Eric. Thanks for weighing in.

InUtero

Well, thankfully they admit Evolution with the inclusion of the Darwinian classification of "species of homo sapiens" in the proposed statute's language.

Which is ironic...because the classification of homo sapiens was created to group a mammal of certain anatomy and capable of reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving.

I asked a blastocyst what it thinks of the Amendment's chances, and it said, "no, still not passing."

Eriseanlady

The new wording still does not acknowledge the MOTHER's "personhood". Some 'routine' pre-natal procedures carry a risk of causing a miscarriage -- such as the test done for Down's syndrome which will cause a miscarriage about 1 in 250 times.

The new wording specifies EMERGENCY treatment, not routine treatment. This still leads to the potential for mothers and doctors being prosecuted for something that has inherant risks -- MEDICAL TREATMENT