Va. personhood bill sparks outrage

By: Leigh Ann Caldwell
Topics: Campaign 2012

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

(Credit: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

A petition opposing two abortion-related bills winding through the Virginia legislature is spreading like "wildfire." In just over 24 hours, 17,000 people have signed the measure that says the Virginia government is conducting a "war on women."

The petition is organized by ProgressVA. Most of the signatories say they are Virginia residents and most are women, and the message they give is clear: The government is overstepping its bounds.

"This war on women has got to stop," the petition reads. "Virginia may be the butt of jokes for late night comedians, but the bills coming out of the General Assembly this year are no laughing matter."

Catherine from Richmond wrote next to her name: "I say to you men in the Virginia legislature - Leave our bodies alone. This is not your place; this is not your right. What you're doing is immoral."

The online petition through signon.org has been spreading quickly, largely through social media. (In the thirty minutes it took me to write this story, 300 additional people added their name.)

"We're absolutely pleased and frankly a little overwhelmed," with petition response, Anna Scholl, Executive Director of ProgressVA, said. "It's been spreading like wildfire."

The petition is addressed to The Virginia State Senate, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling and Governor Bob McDonnell as they are instrumental in the future of these bills. (McDonnell is considered a rising star in the Republican Party. He has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate.)

The Virginia House of Delegates passed HB 1, also known as the "personhood" bill, this week. It defines a fertilized egg as a person, and according to the legislation, "provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth."

Virginia would be the first state in the nation to define a fetus - and a fertilized egg - as a person. It passed the General Assembly and the Senate could take it up as early as this week, if it chooses.

The second bill petitioners object to is HB 462, which requires a woman receive a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. Both bodies of the legislature have passed this measure and only needs Republican Gov. McDonnell's signature before it becomes law.

Scholl says they will continue to spread the word and hope to deliver the petitions as early as this week.

"These recent policies turn my stomach. I believe in fiscal conservatism. Stop mixing it with my personal rights," Lisa Schroeer of Charlottesville, Virginia wrote.

Leigh Ann Caldwell
Leigh Ann Caldwell is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

158 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 158 Comments


by lg144 February 21, 2012 8:33 PM EST: I wonder how many women GOP supporters will become former when they discover the GOP is requiring them to be vaginally probed and raped before they can get a abortion irrespective of the reason? Even though it would not be medically necessary beforehand mind you.; Reply to this comment


by valjean7 February 21, 2012 6:03 PM EST: And would the Personhood bill require a mother be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage, regardless of why?; Reply to this comment


by fredisalive February 21, 2012 5:09 PM EST: For the first time we are going to a "wingnut" convention rather than the republican convention; Reply to this comment


by rationalityrules February 21, 2012 2:40 PM EST: A fertilized egg, and the ball of cells it develops into (blastocyst) has the potential to develop into 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, or more (but let's use 8 as the maximum naturally viable) persons.

Reproductive science has determined that the percent of fertilized eggs that naturally abort, or develop into 0 persons, is about 2/3, making 0 persons the most likely natural outcome for a fertilized egg.

Yet, the fertilized egg has the potential to develop into 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8 humans. So, how should we determine the personhood of this fertilized egg? When one live baby is born, shall we charge that baby with the deaths of 7 potential siblings, since that fertilized egg really could have developed into 8 people but did not because it developed into just 1? Or, perhaps we should charge the mother with the 7 deaths? Sperm is a necessary part of the fertilized egg and therefore could (and according to Catholic doctrine, should) also be considered potential persons. Human ***** contains about 20 million sperm per milliliter. Shall we charge a man who masturbates with 20 million deaths?

Certainly not. A potential person does not equal a person. Not in science, not in nature, and it should never come to pass in law. The concept has no basis in rationality.

People are free to follow whatever religious principles they choose. I have friends who will not eat dairy and meat on the same plate because of religious beliefs and they are free to practice that but not free to outlaw cheeseburgers. Others will not mix or wear certain fabrics based on strict interpretation of the Bible, and they are perfectly free to practice that and explain that beliefs to others but not to outlaw my lycra blend tights. That is the essence of religious freedoms. Free to practice anything you like but NOT to legislate our nation based on religious, rather than rational, beliefs.; Reply to this comment


by Rwinski February 21, 2012 1:02 PM EST: IF Bob McDonnell signs this bill, he should IMMEDIATELY BE ARRESTED for trying to legalize FORCED RAPE. That's a FEDERAL CRIME and he should be put in a cage.; Reply to this comment


by valjean7 February 21, 2012 12:21 PM EST: I ask again...If the fertilized egg is a "person" then is the mother legally responsible for their health while carrying it and if anything goes awry she will be held responsible in court no different than if something she did had happened after the person was born? Is abuse abuse whether done on purpose or accidental?; Reply to this comment

by HolyVoice February 21, 2012 11:57 AM EST

"certificate of conception"? Well, you must admit it's usually much easier to know when someone is born than to know when and where they were conceived...
"by oreotsheepdog February 20, 2012 11:33 PM EST

I am guessing that a 'certificate of conception' would also double as a certificate of citizenship as an American, or at least a Virginian. That also might be useful for getting additional health/welfare benefits during pregnancy. As opposed to having the baby's footprint, they can have it's DNA sample--to avoid any kind of misrepresentation. Hopefully, there won't be a whole lot of fradulent certificates seeking finanical benefits without the actual conception.

This sounds like the conception of a paper chase.

Reply to this comment


by Lindag10 February 21, 2012 4:53 PM EST: This law opens a whole can of legal worms that I doubt the legislature considered. Endowing a fertilized egg or embryo with "personhood" would make them a citizen of the US. That leads to all sorts of issues. How does one determine when the date of conception occurred if a woman has an irregular cycle? Then there's the problem that could arise if the mother relocated to another country (say Canada) and the child was born there although conceived in the US. Would the baby be a US or a Canadian citizen? If a pregnant woman is driving, is there only one person or two people in the car? Would the pregnant woman be allowed to use the commuter lane which is now reserved for cars occupied by two or more people? It just goes on and on. It's unrealistic to think the legislature is going to be able to enact laws that control the women that want an abortion. If it's made illegal they'll go somewhere else and STILL get the abortion. The women that can afford to travel to another state where abortion doesn't require the strigent measures in these laws will do so, the women who can't and don't want to suffer the indiginity that VA wants to inflict on them will be driven once again to the back alleys. It's been proven over and over that this type of social legislation DOESN'T work, no matter how pure the motives of those who support it.


by wdrussell1 February 21, 2012 8:59 AM EST: So in Virginia, a woman now has to get raped twice. Once by the rapist, once by the doctor.
New GOP slogan
We heart rapists.; Reply to this comment


by bread58 February 21, 2012 8:54 AM EST: To those who would insist that a fetus is not a human being, I would caution that the reasoning being used to make that case is the same as was used to justify the institution of slavery: that that which appears to any reasonable person to be a human being is somehow NOT a human being owing merely to the circumstances in which it finds itself.

Throughout history, people committing atrocities have attempted to soothe their own consciences and the moral outrage of others by re-defining their victims as non-human. Indigenous peoples became merely "the natives." African-Americans were deemed sub-human, "closer to apes than men." European explorers routinely claimed to have "discovered" distant lands despite the fact that millions of people were already living in those lands because they never really thought of them as people in the same sense that they regarded themselves or fellow Europeans. And in more recent history, the Nazi party continually insisted that the Jew was sub-human, to facilitate the ease with which they were rounded up and gassed.

You're treading on dangerous ground, here. Time for some introspection.; Reply to this comment

by cheapseats February 20, 2012 5:29 PM EST

"war against women" huh? Ok I'll embrace your language. This legislation is a war against women who want to kill their babies.

Finish this sentence for me, killing a baby in the womb is ok when...

Reply to this comment


by MoreReason February 20, 2012 5:49 PM EST: This is not a matter of who likes abortion or not--nobody LIKES abortion. It is a matter of seeing the forest for the trees, of making an educated decision about this question-- "Is criminalizing abortion more likely to save lives, or endanger them?" When facts are considered (and not ignored/dismissed), it becomes apparent that making abortion a legal, SAFE procedure is the TRUE pro-life position:

1) Worldwide, abortion rates are roughly the same, WHETHER IT IS ILLEGAL OR NOT--FACT. Making something illegal, in general, does not decrease its incidence.

http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Publications_Facts_on_Induced_Abortion_Worldwide.pdf

2) Outlawing abortion HUGELY increases the incidence of maternal death. Did you get that part? Do you care about born children, or just unborn ones? Let me repeat those facts: FACTS PROVE that outlawing abortion does not decrease its incidence, but greatly increases the incidence of maternal death. Which position is pro-life again? In Argentina, where abortion is completely illegal except in incidences of rape, unsafe abortion is the LEADING KILLER of childbearing-aged women.

3) Developed countries in the world that have the LOWEST incidence of abortion are those where it is 100% legal and FREE--Belgium, France and the Netherlands--FACT. How could that be? The scientific consensus is that those same countries have universal health care, thereby making a pregnancy more manageable. This suggests that the most proven way to decrease abortions is to increase access to affordable health care.

4) The same political party that aims to criminalize abortion on the basis of 'saving lives' also wants to decrease support to poverty-stricken families--FACT. From attempting to cut $1 billion federal dollars from HeadStart programs and another billion from programs that serve low-income families, to decrying welfare in general, republicans make no secret that they disdain funding for the poor. Since a large percentage of abortions are sought by low-income women, we can logically assume that should those pregnancies continue, they will result in individuals requiring government assistance to SURVIVE. Again, which is the pro-life position?


by no_faux_for_me February 21, 2012 12:02 AM EST: You are 1) a man 2) a right winger 3)someone with no regard for anyone who dares not read your bible your way. Women are going to eliminate you from the legislature.