(VIDEO) Anti-Choice-Tea Party Video on Amendment 62 Full of Lies, Distortions and Grotesquery

Use quotes to search for exact phrases. Use AND/OR/NOT between keywords or phrases for more precise search results.

(VIDEO) Anti-Choice-Tea Party Video on Amendment 62 Full of Lies, Distortions and Grotesquery

Jodi Jacobson

I am long past the point of hoping for some semblance of truth from the anti-woman, anti-life, anti-choice movement.  Still, the length to which they use blatant lies and distortions--and the failure of most media outlets to call them on it--remains breathtaking.

I am long past the point of hoping for some semblance of truth from the anti-woman, anti-life, anti-choice movement.  Still, the length to which they use blatant lies and distortions–and the failure of most media outlets to call them on it–remains breathtaking.

The most recent example is a video circulating on Amendment 62, the so-called Personhood Amendment on the ballot in Colorado, which seeks to imbue fertilized eggs with the same rights as living, breathing, born human beings. 

A similar referendum effort failed in 2008.

Now, it appears, with an infusion of “tea party” money from who knows where, anti-choice forces are pulling out all the stops, including the video which spreads additional lies, references Nazi Germany, and features grotesque caricatures of President Obama as the angel of death and as the Joker from Batman.

Roe has collapsed and Texas is in chaos.

Stay up to date with The Fallout, a newsletter from our expert journalists.


The lies are evident to anyone who knows facts.  The video, for example, makes the claim that the Obama Administration is spending “$457 million on abortion internationally.”  Under current U.S. law, the United States government is not able to fund abortions anywhere outside the states, so this is patently false. 

It then goes on to say that the new health care reform law “contains massive funding for abortion…” in the form of kickbacks to contributors.  That would be somewhat difficult given that the law clearly states that no federal funding will be spent on abortion care anywhere, and that even private funds of private individuals buying private policies can not cover abortion care if even one penny of federal funding is allocated to that same insurance plan for any other person in the system.  Again, patent lie.

What is the truth?  The Tea-Party-Far Right-Anti-Choice-Republican candidates pushing for Amendment 62 and running for office in Colorado (Ken Buck for one), don’t want you to know.  But here it is:

Beyond making such everyday things like birth control pills and IUDs illegal, the Amendment, if passed, would of course outlaw all abortions and make it virtually impossible for women to obtain them even in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, if they could at all, but would also outlaw in vitro fertilization and stem cell research, would make it virtually impossible for pregnant women with cancer or other life-threatening illnesses to obtain treatment they would need to save their own health and lives, and potentially turn miscarriages into homicide investigations. 

And, as NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado points out the law would have the following effects:

  1. Increasing unintended and unwanted pregnancies in Colorado


    The most effective forms of birth control like the pill, injectibles like Implanon and Depo-Provera, NuvaRing, the patch, and IUDs work primarily by inhibiting release of an egg into the womb. They also alter the lining of a woman’s uterine wall in a way that makes the uterus inhospitable to fertilized eggs, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg if fertilization does occur — preventing a pregnancy from occurring. By giving rights to fertilized eggs, Amendment 62 would make it illegal to use these forms of birth control. 

  2. Severely restricting medical research & advances in reproductive technology
    One of the most common forms of assisted reproductive technology is in-vitro fertilization, where several fertilized eggs are created in a lab environment. Once created, some of these fertilized eggs are injected into a woman’s body with the hope that implantation will occur and the woman’s body will begin producing the hormones necessary to sustain a pregnancy. Because of the cost of this procedure, more fertilized eggs are usually produced than are used. Giving legal rights to fertilized eggs could ban in-vitro fertilization — as well as some stem cell research that is being used to find cures for chronic diseases and disabilities.
  3. Ignoring the reality of miscarriages and non-implantation
    Amendment 62 fails to recognize the prevalence of miscarriages (both when a woman is aware of being pregnant and when she is not) and nonimplantation – even when a woman is not using a contraceptive method that can inhibit implantation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. Amendment 62 would open the door for criminal investigations into miscarriages or situations where a woman’s body rejected implantation of a fertilized egg.
  4. Subjecting women facing ectopic pregnancies to intrusion by politicians and the courts
    Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, such as in the fallopian tube or cervix. Because the location of implantation is not large enough to allow full gestation of the developing fetus, an ectopic pregnancy could result in the rupture of the fallopian tube, cervix, or other organ where implantation occurred if the pregnancy is not removed. Amendment 62 could be used to deny live-saving medical care to a woman because it could endanger a fertilized egg.

Such laws truly turn women into breeding cows.  Moreover, experts estimate that thousands of laws regarding property, legal rights and other aspects of standing law would have to be changed to recognize the “rights” of fertilized eggs.

Finally, the vague language would make one religious viewpoint the law of the land when it comes to reproductive health care. 

It would seem that if there were a rational, truthful argument to be made in support of this law, it would be made.  It has yet to be made.  Instead, its proponents have to resort to lying and scare tactics reminiscent of the very societies they reference in their fear-mongering to attempt to frighten people into voting for something so clearly against human rights and the public interest.

What is most frightening is that so many people are so comfortable spreading lies for political gain.