Amendment 62 will appear on the 2010 state ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment. The measure is being supported by Colorado Personhood, a local branch of Personhood USA. The 2010 version defines a person as "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being".
That statement [Amendment no. 62] is being challenged by the Colorado Medical Society and the Colorado Section of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG].
Below is a letter I have written to the Colorado Senate President in support of Amendment no. 62.
Senator Brandon C. Shaffer
Senate President, Colorado State Senator, District 17
200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO. 80203
E mail: Brandon.Shaffer.lsenate@state.co.us
Dear Senator Shaffer:
I have been requested by Dr. Dianne Irving to forward to you an endorsement of her answer to the Colorado ACOG Statement on Amendment 62. I am pleased to do this, and to voice my support for Amendment no. 62,
I am an emeritus professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. I taught medical students for more than 30 years, including most of the Anatomy disciplines. However, my specialty is Human Embryology.
I have read the Statement on Amendment 62 from the Colorado Section of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, including the Summary and Additional Information. I must say I was particularly offended by many of their comments.
I have also read Dr. Irving's response. It is factual, appropriately detailed and complete.
In the ACOG Summary it is stated: gThe phrase gthe beginning of biologic development" is a vague terminology that is not typically used in embryology or other medical/scientific fields to define embryologic development." This is a bold faced, outrageous lie! Later, the statement invokes the field of Developmental Biology. Unfortunately, Developmental Biology has been corrupting the science of Human Embryology for more than 30 years.
Every physician in the Colorado ACOG who approved of this statement should receive an F, and if they had been in my classes, they would get it. Either they were asleep in their classes in Human Embryology, or their medical school never taught the subject. This would not be surprising since less than half of the medical schools in this country have a bona fide course in Human Embryology.
The ACOG quoted statement is political, not scientific. The exceptions they state are conflations of the truth, and these exceptions, singularly or collectively, say absolutely nothing about those pregnancies which emanate from the first moment of contact, oocyte with sperm, which is the biological moment of the new, individual human being.
Using these exceptions, at worst, is deliberate deception, and, at best is intellectual laziness. I never tolerated sloth in my medical students, neither in class lecture nor in laboratory sessions.
Having the title of physician after one's name does not automatically make one smart. Within the panoply of truths in this world, certain ones are irrefutable, and the biological development of the human being beginning at first contact, oocyte with sperm, is one of them.
Amplifying my conclusion is the definition of stem cells given in the Discussion. To put it succinctly, whoever wrote this part does not know what they are talking about.
I refer you to the many articles I have authored on The Beginning of Human Life, and on Stem cells, published in LifeIssues.net.
With all good wishes,
C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D.
Emeritus professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology
Specialty in Human Embryology
University of Arizona
College of Medicine
Tucson, Arizona 85724
E mail:
wardkischer@yahoo.com