A furor has erupted about the Colorado Supreme Court's recent ruling that a proposed ballot amendment extending constitutional rights to fertilized human eggs could move forward as it's currently worded. Pro-choice advocates in the state had alleged that the proposed ballot disobeyed the state's single subject rule and was not deceptive in purpose — but the Court ruled against them.

While the ballot measure still has several hurdles to pass through before becoming law, the outcomes are frightening enough to demand attention right now. What exactly would "constitutional rights" for fertilized eggs imply? “Whatever rights and liberties and duties and responsibilities are guaranteed under the Constitution or other state laws would flow to that life,” said Michael J. Norton, an attorney representing supporters of the proposed amendment.

''All fertilized eggs could use the courts, and that lays the foundation for a potential onslaught,'' NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado deputy director Toni Panetta told the New York Times. The Times writes, "[Panetta] said the language would open up challenges to birth control, including oral contraception and intrauterine devices, which make the uterine wall inhospitable to the developing egg."

Stay tuned to Rewire, where local Colorado correspondent Wendy Norris will follow up with more reporting on the proposed ballot amendment in the coming days.