Even the most ardent abortion foe would have a hard time arguing that such an amendment to the constitution makes sense. Just think of the ramifications. Such law would make even common forms of birth control such as "the Pill", the sponge, or the IUD illegal. All of these devices stop a fertilized egg from implanting and therefore would be banned for denying "sanctuary" for a person.
In-vitro procedures would likewise be declared against the law. Such fertility treatments commonly fertilize multiple eggs, but only some are introduced into the mother's womb. Legally, those embryos would be considered human beings and failure to keep them alive would be tantamount to murder.
Let's say the amendment becomes law. If a woman is diagnosed with gestational diabetes, could she technically sue her own fetus for reckless endangerment? Could pregnant women drive in the carpool lane? Just think of the interesting ramifications!
In the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, the abortion issue has been a litmus test for many voters and a flashpoint for activists. Last year there were approximately 1.3 million abortions in the U.S. Those who are against legalized abortion should think of real ways to decrease that number, including better education and funding for birth control.
Government funds are not used to fund abortion. The Hyde amendment in 1977 banned Medicaid funds from being used for the procedure. Simple abstinence lessons won't cut it. Consider the married woman who has more on her plate than she can handle, is abstinence really an option for such a woman if she can no longer gain access to traditional birth control?
Abortion foes should take on insurance companies who continue to deny funding for birth control, but fork over payment for Viagra. Now that is zeal that makes sense, unlike the right-to-life terrorists in Colorado.