DES

In a country that prides itself on personal freedom, politicians still think they should have a say in whether a woman continues or terminates her pregnancy. The issue of abortion always surfaces in political debates, and the recent U.S. Senate debate in Indianola between Democrat Bruce Braley and Republican Joni Ernst was no exception.

In response to a question about federal laws and funding related to abortion, Braley directed attention to his opponent. "What I won't do is support the type of legislation that Sen. Ernst introduced in Iowa" that he said would have prevented certain forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization and resulted in the prosecution of doctors.

Braley was referring to Senate Joint Resolution 10, which proposed amending the Iowa Constitution with what has come to be called a "personhood" amendment. The resolution stated, "The inalienable right to life of every person at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected."

Ernst was among 21 lawmakers who supported the resolution last year. The proposed amendment stalled.

During the recent debate, she said the proposed amendment "would not do any of the things" Braley said it would do. "That amendment is simply a statement that I support life," she said. She said the consequences Braley cited could result "only if the legislation would be passed."

Wasn't that her intention, though, to try to pass the resolution when she voted for it?

In a nutshell, a so-called "personhood" amendment seeks to provide a fetus with the same "right to life" as the rest of us. One does not have to think very hard to recognize the potential problems with that concept and to foresee the anxiety such an amendment could bring to our state.

While Braley is going too far in equating something that "could" happen with something that "would" happen, there almost certainly would be further legislation to build on such an amendment if it were to pass. And just as certainly, it's easy to foresee multiple legal challenges.

Would miscarriages be investigated by law enforcement to make sure there were no nefarious actions involved? When a woman swallowed legal medication to terminate a pregnancy, would she face murder charges? If a fetus is really a "person," a pregnant mother not seeking prenatal care might be engaging in child neglect.

Such an amendment would go too far. It is simply another of the many political tactics politicians have engaged in to get "on the record" people's votes opposing, or supporting, abortion.

Ernst's assertion that a personhood amendment is "simply a statement that I support life" is naive. Amending the Iowa Constitution is a big deal. And it's a rare event, having been done fewer than 50 times since the constitution was adopted. A proposed amendment needs to be approved by both the Iowa House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies and then approved by voters in the next general election.

Let's hope candidates seeking to represent our state and its residents understand that constitutional amendments are not simply personal statements from politicians that have no meaning or consequences in the real world.

And let's hope they understand the implications of amendments they say they want added to the document that is the foundation of life in Iowa today.