NORTH DAKOTA, STEM CELLS, AND THE GREAT “PERSONHOOD” LIE

Filling sandbags against a raging river, North Dakota citizens inspired the world not long ago. Shoulder to shoulder the residents of Fargo, North Dakota worked, long nights in the pouring rain– and they built that sandbag dam, protecting the lives and homes of their neighbors.

But now imagine a piece of foolishness: suppose a new law has been enacted, criminalizing the making of sandbags. The legislation says each grain of sand has an existence of its own, and must be allowed freedom, independence, and a lawyer: full standing in a court of law.

The new legislation permits—no, requires!—that every sandbag be set free, yanked out of those North Dakota dams. And so the floods come roaring down, on the undefended homes…

Ridiculous? Don’t laugh too soon.

On February 17th, 2009, North Dakota’s House of Representatives passed an equally short-sighted bill with potentially devastating real-life consequences. That bill goes now to the state’s Senate.

House Bill 1572 is a “personhood” law… establishing microscopic human cells as a person, a full-fledged human being.

It sounds harmless enough, at first.

But this new definition of personhood—giving legal status to tissue samples smaller than a grain of sand– could blast the entire field of embryonic stem cell research.

Let’s take a quick run through this bill, which would so casually criminalize one of humanity’s best hopes.

Here are a few brief highlights; complete text follows at the end.

98312.0200 Sixty-first Legislative Assembly HOUSE BILL NO. 1572 of North Dakota, Introduced by Representative Ruby.

“Section 1. Equality and rights guaranteed to all human beings….

a. “Human being” means any organism, (emphasis added) including the single-cell human embryo… (which) possesses a genome (for)… the human species.”

Comment: According to the Human Genome Project, the genome is “found in every nucleus of a person’s many trillions of cells…”
(https://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer/prim1.html)

There are approximately 100 trillion human cells in every human body—according to the new definition, how many are human beings?

“2. The state shall naturalize all preborn persons and shall afford to them all the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, except that the state is not required to include preborn children in state and local censuses.”

Comment: The great commentator and comedian Will Rogers once said, “When Congress makes a joke, it’s a law.” HB 1572 does contain some unintended humor, like the above-named census exemption.

With trillions of newly-defined “preborn persons”, a census would indeed be difficult— not to mention the income tax complications — could we claim our own cells as dependents?

But the proponents of this bill are deadly serious.

In a clear attempt to tar stem cells by association (like repeatedly naming a Congressman in an article on horsetheft) HB 1572 contains numerous references to: incest, abortion, dismemberment, torture– and the killing of children.

“Section 3, part d:

“Because scientists have discovered a way of creating pluripotent cells using umbilical stem cells, there is no need to kill children to obtain their embryonic stem cells.”

There it is: the great personhood lie– the pretense that there are children involved in embryonic stem cell research.

And what a shameful deception it is.

A blastocyst in a Petri dish is living tissue, not a life.

To prove this, we need only ask ourselves one question:

Can a sperm and egg become a child—outside the womb?

Common sense provides the answer. Without the nurturing shelter of a mother’s womb, it is biologically impossible to make a child.

No mother, no child: this is not rocket science.

Stem cell research, as the name implies, is cells, cells, nothing but cells—and the possibility of cure.

Why would such a ludicrous bill even be considered?

First, the opposition is running scared. They are losing, and they know it. When President Obama overturned the Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, that put the Federal government officially on our side. The game is almost up.

However: if personhood laws can re-define life as having citizenship at the single-cell level, the U.S. Supreme Court (remember, the Roberts Court is very conservative) might actually find grounds to criminalize the entire field of embryonic stem cell research.

Impossible?

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment already blocks federal funding for any new embryonic stem cell lines—and it does so with personhood language and concepts.

To be continued…

As promised, here is the full text of HB 1572.

“98312.0200 Sixty-first Legislative Assembly
HOUSE BILL NO. 1572 of North Dakota
Introduced by Representative Ruby

A BILL for an Act to provide for equality and rights to all human beings at every stage of
biological development; to create and enact two new sections to chapter 12.1-17, relating to the crimes of dismemberment and torture; to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 12.1-20-03, section 12.1-20-11, subsection 2 of section 12.1-20-17, and section 12.1-27.2-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to penalties for crimes against born alive children; to provide legislative intent; and to provide a penalty.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. Equality and rights guaranteed to all human beings.

1. For purposes of this Act:
a. “Born”, “birth”, “partially born”, “born alive”, and any derivation thereof, apply
to any child located inside a uterus, which is pulled out of the mother; or who
has ever had any part of its body, including the head, pulled out of the uterus,
such as during natural birth, artificial birth, or abortion.

b. “Human being” means any organism, including the single-cell human embryo,
irrespective of the method of reproduction, who possesses a genome specific
for and consistent with an individual member of the human species.

c. “Human embryo” means all human beings from the beginning of the
embryonic period of their biological development through eight weeks,
irrespective of age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of
reproduction, whether in vivo or in vitro.

d. “Human fetus” means all human beings from the beginning of the fetal period
of their biological development, which begins at nine weeks gestation through
birth, irrespective of age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of
reproduction, whether in vivo or in vitro.

e. “Human genome” means the total amount of nuclear and extra-nuclear DNA
genetic material that constitutes an organism as an individual member of the
human species, including the single-cell human embryo.

f. “Person” or “individual” means the legal recognition of a human being’s full
status as a human person that applies to all human beings, irrespective of
age, health, function, physical dependency, or method of reproduction,
including their preborn offspring at every stage of their biological
development.

2. The state shall naturalize all preborn persons and shall afford to them all the
privileges and immunities of state citizenship guaranteed in section 21 of article I of
the Constitution of North Dakota, except that the state is not required to include
preborn children in state and local censuses.

3. The state shall afford the equality and inherent rights guaranteed to individuals in
section 1 of article I of the Constitution of North Dakota and the right to due
process guaranteed to persons in section 12 of article I of the Constitution of North
Dakota to all human beings, including the preborn, partially born, born alive, and
born alive who reenter the womb.

4. Personhood may not be denied:
a. If all the body parts are pulled out of the uterus except the legs or arms or
portions of legs or arms are still inside the uterus;
b. When the child is about to be born;
c. When the child’s head is taken out and placed back inside the uterus;
d. If a child’s head is pushed back inside the uterus;
e. To partially born or born alive babies; or
f. Once a uterus is placed back inside the mother.

SECTION 2. Legislative findings regarding certain effects of establishing
personhood.

1. With respect to preborn personhood, it is the intent of the legislative assembly to:
a. Immunize a woman from criminal prosecution for abortion.
b. Increase and decrease the penalties for crimes against persons.

2. It is the intent of the legislative assembly that every available means to assert
preborn personhood be used, which has been denied to even late term preborn
and partially born children.

3. It is the finding of the legislative assembly that:

a. The right to life is the paramount right of a person. The right to life is a more
fundamental right of a preborn child than the mother’s right to liberty or pursuit
of happiness, which does not include the right to kill other people. In no way
does a child’s right to life interfere with a mother’s right to life.

b. The state does not need to prove that it has a prerogative or a compelling
interest before the courts allow this state to recognize that all children are
persons and human beings, which they are. The legislative assembly may
not attempt to immediately solve all the effects of preborn personhood until
after thorough study and more importantly until after actually establishing
preborn personhood and waiting for the courts to recognize it.

c. When the uterus with a child inside is placed back inside the mother,
personhood extends to all other preborn children due to equal protection of
the laws.

d. Because scientists have discovered a way of creating pluripotent cells using
umbilical stem cells, there is no need to kill children to obtain their embryonic
stem cells.

e. It is not yet possible to conclusively determine whether all chemical
contraception is abortifacient or not.

f. All abortions, whether surgically or chemically induced, terminate the life of a
whole, separate, unique, living human being. There is an existing relationship
between a pregnant woman and her preborn child during the entire period of
gestation.

g. Because all preborn children are persons, no abortion performed with specific
intent is legal. A direct abortion is always performed with the specific intent to
bring death to a preborn child; it is a deprivation of the right to life and the right
to the equal protection of the law and is the ultimate manifestation of the
involuntary servitude of one human being to another.

h. A mother is not going to die by recognizing her child’s right to life. When the
mother needs a life-saving medical operation, then an indirect abortion is not
legally or morally considered abortion because it is not performed with specific
intent to bring death to a preborn child. The death of the child may be
permitted as an indirect and unavoidable result of steps necessary to save the
mother’s life. Physicians shall make, in all cases, every effort to preserve
both the life of the mother and the life of the preborn child. Physicians shall
provide equal care and equal consideration to the mother and child.

i. Medical treatment that has as its primary purpose to cure a disease of the
pregnant woman or of a twin preborn human being may not be considered
abortion. The pregnant woman must be given the choice of which treatment
to receive provided it is treatment intended to act upon or cure a disease.
This excludes the possibility of ever performing an abortion under the
pretense of a medical necessity since a preborn human being is not a
disease.

j. In the case of twins, all medical procedures designed to address specific
medical conditions that affect both twins are lawful provided as the physician’s
actions are performed with the specific intent to save the life of the preborn
human being with highest chance of survival.

k. If a pregnant woman’s health is in danger during a pregnancy, the physician
may not be held criminally responsible for unintentionally causing the death of
the preborn human being from legitimate treatment administered to the
pregnant woman. Chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and other medical
procedures that are not intended to cause the death of the preborn human
being but that are likely to do so, may not be prohibited if prescribed to cure
the pregnant woman. Under no circumstance may abortion be considered
legitimate treatment.

SECTION 3. Two new sections to chapter 12.1-17 of the North Dakota Century Code
are created and enacted as follows:

Dismemberment – Penalty.

1. A person is guilty of an offense if that person intentionally dismembers the body of
another human being, as defined in section 1 of this Act, without causing the death
of the other human being.

2. The offense is a class C felony, except if the victim is a born alive child, as defined
in section 1 of this Act, the offense is a class B felony.

Torture – Penalty.
1. A person is guilty of an offense if that person intentionally inflicts excruciating pain
on another human being, as defined in section 1 of this Act, without causing the
death of the other human being.

2. The offense is a class C felony, except if the victim is a born alive child, as defined
in section 1 of this Act, the offense is a class B felony.

SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. Subsection 3 of section 12.1-20-03 of the North Dakota
Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:

3. a. An offense under this section is a class AA felony if in the course of the
offense the actor inflicts serious bodily injury upon the victim, if the victim is a
born alive child, as defined in section 1 of this Act, if the actor’s conduct
violates subdivision a of subsection 1, or if the actor’s conduct violates
subdivision d of subsection 1 and the actor was at least twenty-two years of
age at the time of the offense. For any conviction of a class AA felony under
subdivision a of subsection 1, the court shall impose a minimum sentence of
twenty years’ imprisonment, with probation supervision to follow the
incarceration. The court may deviate from the mandatory sentence if the
court finds that the sentence would impose a manifest injustice as defined in
section 39-01-01 and the defendant has accepted responsibility for the crime
or cooperated with law enforcement. However, a defendant convicted of a
class AA felony under this section may not be sentenced to serve less than
five years of incarceration.

b. Otherwise the offense is a class A felony.

SECTION 5. AMENDMENT. Section 12.1-20-11 of the North Dakota Century Code is
amended and reenacted as follows:

12.1-20-11. Incest. A person who intermarries, cohabits, or engages in a sexual act
with another person related to him within a degree of consanguinity within which marriages are declared incestuous and void by section 14-03-03, knowing such other person to be within said degree of relationship, is guilty of a class C felony. If the victim is a born alive child, as defined in section 1 of this Act, the person is guilty of a class B felony.

SECTION 6. AMENDMENT. Subsection 2 of section 12.1-20-17 of the North Dakota
Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:

2. A person who, knowing that that person is or has been afflicted with acquired
immune deficiency syndrome, afflicted with acquired immune deficiency syndrome
related complexes, or infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, willfully
transfers any of that person’s body fluid to another person is guilty of a class A
felony. The person is guilty of a class AA felony if the victim is under the age of
fifteen or the victim is a born alive child as defined in section 1 of this Act.

SECTION 7. AMENDMENT. Section 12.1-27.2-04.1 of the North Dakota Century Code
is amended and reenacted as follows:

12.1-27.2-04.1. Possession of certain materials prohibited. A person is guilty of a
class C felony if, knowing of its character and content, that person knowingly possesses any motion picture, photograph, or other visual representation that includes sexual conduct by a minor. A person is guilty of a class B felony if the minor is a born alive child as defined in section 1 of this Act.

SECTION 8. STATE TO DEFEND CHALLENGE. The legislative assembly, by joint
resolution, may appoint one or more of its members, as a matter of right and in the legislative member’s official capacity, to intervene to defend this law in any case in which its constitutionality is challenged.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This