A Nevada district court judge threw out a proposed "personhood" state ballot measure Friday arguing that the language is "too general in nature."
District Judge James Russell further ruled that the initiative which seeks to extend constitutional protections to fertilized eggs has sweeping implications for reproductive health care and thus violates state law which limits initiatives to a single subject.
"There's no way for the voter to understand the effects of the initiative," Russell said.
Silver State anti-choice activists have been pushing a constitutional amendment that proposed to upend the law with a scant 14-word sentence: "In the great state of Nevada, the term ''person' applies to every human being."
Critics charge the hazy wording was meant to shadow its true intent to ban abortion, contraception, in-vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research.
Of course, Ziser's minions tried to compare health care professionals and women in need of reproductive health care to Nazis... But it looks like more level heads prevailed.
Taking a decidedly less bombastic approach, ACLU of Nevada attorney Lee Rowland argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Nevada and three plaintiffs that the constitutional amendment would have broad repercussions for reproductive health. She refuted the so-called simplicity of the language as a legal nightmare.
The judge agreed with Rowland ruling that the petition language didn't meet the test of state ballot law. It has "complex implications." said Russell.
"Today's decision rightfully prevents this sweeping and misleading initiative from being placed on the 2010 ballot,” said Rowland in a prepared statement by the ACLU and Nevada Advocates of Planned Parenthood Affiliates following the ruling.
“This initiative could have impacted literally thousands of laws, inviting lawyers and the courts to reinterpret every Nevada law and regulation that contains the word ‘person’ all at the expense of Nevada taxpayers. The key problem is that it covered too many issues, and failed to explain to voters its intent and impact on Nevada law."
Thankfully, the court did the right thing and tossed out this frivolous initiative. We really don't need any more ridiculous challenges to women's rights and women's ability to make their own decisions on their own health care.