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

WW: How will the upcoming Personhood campaign differ from previous ones?

KBB: We believe that the 2008 and 2010 campaigns were clear in their purpose. However, no one will be able to accurately question the effect or purpose of the 2012 Personhood Amendment. We have listened to the concerns of Colorado voters. In our amendment, we have written in language that stops Planned Parenthood and company from their bald-faced lies. They're going to have to come up with a different tack. With our new language, they are forced to stop scaring women and familes by claiming they will be prosecuted for miscarriages, that all birth control and IVF will be banned, and that 20,000 laws will be affected. They're just plain wrong. However, they love to lie, so I'm sure they'll be back at it to some degree. It's just unfortunate that our tax money pays for them to tell lies and scare women and their families.

Personhood USA

WW: Will you make an effort to broaden your message to appeal to a larger portion of the electorate? Or can the amendment pass by simply doing a better job of getting people who support it to the polls?

KBB: I think we will certainly attempt to get as many of our people to the polls as possible, and that always helps! Our message, simply put, is that, in order to promote human dignity, the intentional killing of innocent people needs to stop! I think that is a broad message that resonates with many Coloradoans. It seems that people in my generation are especially likely to agree that killing innocent people is always wrong.

Here's something I find incredibly interesting: nowhere in our amendment is the word "abortion" used. Yet many have already portrayed this as an abortion ban. What does that tell you they know abortion is? The intentional killing of innocent persons. That's the only thing we're banning in the 2012 Amendment...

As a further thought, it's interesting to me that our definition of person is not being debated at all. Our opposition, so far, hasn't contended that all human beings are persons. They got all over us for our accurate scientific claims last time. This time around, they seem to be conceding that all humans are persons. Instead, they want to argue about whether or not innocent people should be killed.

WW: Will you be using your Lost Generation blog as part of the campaign? If so, how?

KBB: Well, since I use it to discuss pro-life news and ways to get involved, I will be posting occasional updates, announcements and ways to get active in the 2012 campaign. But I'll still be covering other pro-life efforts as well.

WW: When we spoke in 2010, you had a new baby. Could you tell me a little about your family today?

KBB: My favorite thing to talk about is my family! So I'd love to answer your question, but I've decided to keep my family a private issue on this campaign. I will tell you, though, that I'm still married and I still have my baby lol =)

WW: Is there anything i might not have asked about that you feel is particularly important to add?

KBB: I'll repeat a bit of what I said above that I think is particularly important to this campaign: Nowhere in our Amendment is the word "abortion" used. Yet, many have already portrayed this as an abortion ban. What does that tell you they know abortion is? The intentional killing of innocent persons. That's the only thing we're banning in the 2012 Amendment. I'm very glad to see many have already made that huge jump and agree with us that abortion is just a fancy word for the intentional killing of innocent persons. Now if only they'd agree that this killing is wrong! I think the people of Colorado will agree one day... whether it's in 2012 or later down the road. Either way, we're committed to giving the equal right to life to all people.

Coverage of the Personhood Amendment press conference can be found on the Free Colorado website.

Click here to follow and like the Michael Roberts/Westword Facebook page.

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