The Unintended Consequences Of Personhood Legislation

The GOP is pursuing personhood legislation in states around the country as a way to make abortions illegal. Since the pro-life movement hasn't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade, they're using this as an alternative attack on the legal right to abortion in the country. Colorado has twice tried to bring a personhood amendment, and Missouri has also failed to approve a personhood bill.

It's a move that is destined to have unintended consequences that its proponents are wary to even discuss. Virginia is the latest to attempt to legislate away the right of abortion by redefining the term person. The GOP is pushing a personhood bill there, and yet the word "person" appears in the Virginia statutes 25,000 times. Any chance that something important might be affected by changing the definition?

Absolutely.

Unfortunately, not only would this bill lay the foundation to ban abortion and contraception, it could also wreak havoc on other areas of the law. The word “person” appears over 25,000 times in the laws of Virginia. No one knows the exact consequences of changing such an ordinary word, but the proponents of H.B. 1 refused to discuss or address these concerns in committee or on the floor of the House. Granting fertilized eggs all of the rights, privileges, and immunities the people of the Commonwealth currently hold could impact inheritance laws, election laws, tax laws, and even criminal laws. The bill has the potential to allow individuals to claim embryos in petri dishes as dependents, to challenge population numbers and election districts based on where IVF clinics are located. We fear this bill could even allow a non-family member to bring charges against a woman who has had a miscarriage.

The more legislatures attempt to push these kinds of laws, the greater the chances that the unintended consequences will be more severe.

Granting personhood to an embryo could potentially result in questioning census results, tax levies, inheritance law, and domestic relations laws, employer benefits laws, etc.

The GOP is opening a Pandora's box of trouble with this - and it's all with an eye towards eliminating the legal right to abortion. It's a roundabout attempt to make abortions illegal - and by making a claim that is unsupported by the science at that.

Concerns About Census Fraud In Brooklyn Spur Investigations

The Census Department had already fired two people in Brooklyn for fraudulently counting nearly 10,000 households in Brooklyn forcing a recount of those households. Now, Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) wants additional investigations because of additional accusations of fraud.

Towns then started his own investigation. He found even more accusations of fraud, including claims that workers at the Northeast and Central Brooklyn offices completed forms on individual households without actually talking to residents.

Census spokesman Burton Reist said the department is redoing counts in those areas and "conducting a nationwide investigation to determine whether this happened anywhere else."

"They could be undercounting thousands and thousands of people," Towns said. "A lot is riding here. Money for schools, food stamps, everything is connected to this count."

That's especially troubling during tough economic times in New York, where funding is being slashed in the city and statewide, he said. "We are still providing resources for people that we did not count," Towns said. "We want to make certain we count everybody so the resources will be there."

While Towns thinks this could result in undercounting, it is possible that such fraud could result in overcounting. The Census Department is tasked with accurately counting the population, and any determinations of fraud or malfeasance have to be addressed adequately. Hopefully, they'll be able to sort this mess out and get an accurate count.

About Those Census Forms

Some folks (and media outlets) are making a big deal about the 2010 census form including the term "negro" on the form when self identifying the individual's race.

It would appear that this is no different than the form that was used in the 2000 census. The 1990 census form provided for black or negro in answering the race question.

Since these forms come around only once every 10 years, this is probably the first time that some people have had a chance to weigh in with their opinions or given any thought to the way the questions and responses are phrased.

Now, it is perhaps time to permanently retire the use of the form even though the most commonly accepted excuse for keeping the term on the census form is that some older African Americans recognize that term for self-identification than African American or black.

Then again, maybe we should drop the census question on race altogether. It has done more to divide the nation than it has in bringing it together. Of course, using the information on race helps divide up monies for various programs, so opposition to dropping the race question would come from those who would benefit most by continuing the status quo on the form (in continuing to ask about race, that is).