1. Personhood would “make it difficult for doctors to help women with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies and incomplete miscarriages.”
FALSE. When unborn babies are recognized as persons with a right to life, a pregnant mother will always be able to get life-saving treatment for ectopic pregnancy, incomplete miscarriages or any other life threatening condition. See Prenatal Personhood, can mothers get life-saving medical treatment?
2. “A personhood law could ban in vitro fertilization (IVF).”
FALSE. Recognizing that human embryos are persons implies that IVF clinics treat the tiny human beings in their charge ethically, with reasonable appropriate care just as they do for other patients. See Personhood doesn’t ban IVF.
3. “Some forms of birth control could be banned.”
MISLEADING. Abortion advocates speak of “some” but they don’t mention what standard would be used to determine which birth control devices could be banned. Personhood implies a ban on only devices that kill an unborn human being after she has come into existence at fertilization. In other words, only abortion-causing devices could be affected. Contraceptives that merely prevent fertilization would not be affected.
4. “Women could be investigated and prosecuted for miscarriages.”
FALSE. Miscarriages don’t provide reasonable suspicion of a crime, so such tragedies would not be investigated. In places where abortion is illegal (such as Chile and Ireland) women are not investigated for miscarriage. Prior to Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal, women were not investigated for miscarriage. See Personhood would NOT criminalize miscarriages.
5. “Because the amendment requires the protection of life at any stage, it may impact end-of-life care.”
These happy old people say FALSE. The right to life of postnatal human beings is already protected under law, therefore re-recognizing the right to life has no effect on postnatal human beings. If any particular end-of-life practice in any way tramples on the right to life, such “care” should be adjusted to fit within the right to life already protected under law.
6. “A personhood law would force one religious view onto all citizens through law.”
FALSE. No, you’re not about to get hit with that crucifix. Personhood is about upholding the basic human rights of every living human being. It isn’t contingent upon religious beliefs one way or the other, it’s simply based on science: human life begins at fertilization.
Personhood would stop people from using lethal force to force their religious and non-religious views on unborn children. By protecting the child from getting killed, personhood protects her religious freedom. See Infringing religious freedom.
7. “A personhood law prompts questions about all laws referring to a person, resulting in costly reviews and changes. For example, states will start issuing conception certificates instead of birth certificates!”
FALSE. Personhood recognizes the right to life of every human being from the beginning of life. This has nothing to do with certificates or other matters unrelated to protecting life.
The Ohio Supreme Court made it clear back in their 1949 Williams v. Marion Rapid Transit decision that, traditionally, the preborn child had personhood rights for all those instances where it was to his or her benefit. It doesn’t relate at all to tangential and irrelevant issues like HOV lanes, birth certificates, or other “unintended consequences.” See Pro-choicers say the darndest things.