A former state Senator from Edinburg – who lost his seat in the election of 2012, because of redistricting – says he’s puzzled why supporters of Measure One chose the language they did for the failed Constitutional amendment.
Prairie Public's Dave Thompson reports.
Republican Curtis Olafson lost his seat to Republican Joe Miller. The anti-abortion group “Personhood USA” campaigned against him, sending out campaign material that questioned Olafson’s statements that he is “pro life.” The materials also blamed him for the defeat of personhood bills in the 2009 and 2011 sessions.
Olafson says the 2009 bill was House Bill 1572. He carried the bill on the Senate floor.
"And I recall saying that this bill has more unintended consequences than any bill I have ever seen," said Olafson. The bill failed in the Senate after passing the House.
Olafson says the language in Measure One was apparently chosen to stir up debate. And he says it wasn’t necessary. Olafson says he had a proposed Constitutional amendment drawn up in 2012, for possible introduction in the 2013 Legislature.
"Here's what it said: 'Nothing in this constitution may be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding of an abortion," said Olafson. He says he believes that language could have been approved by voters. And Olafson says unlike the wording in Measure One, this would have been more direct – and possibly short-circuited some of the arguments.
"This amendment would not provoke any concerns about whether it would interfere with in vitro fertilization or fertility treatments," Olafson said. "It would not provoke any concerns over whether it would interfere with life saving treatment of complications from pregnancy. And unlike Measure One, it would not provoke any concerns about whether it would interfere with advance health care directives or 'do not resuscitate' orders."
But Olafson says Personhood USA was bound and determined to have North Dakota’s measure to be used as a potential Supreme Court challenge to Roe versus Wade – the 1972 ruling that, in effect, legalized abortions. Olafson says the votes aren’t there in the High Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
"There are only 3 votes on the US Supreme Court at the current time to overturn Roe v. Wade," said Olafson. "They are (Samuel) Alito, (Clarence) Thomas and (Antonin) Scalia. That's it."
And Olafson if the Supreme Court would take the case, there could be unintended consequences.
"They (the Court) would do one of two things," said Olafson. "They would simply reaffirm Roe v. Wade, which would add another layer of precedent, making Roe v. Wade impossible to overturn in the future. Or, worse yet, the best and most reliable pro-life Constitutional scholars are issuing stern warnings that this current Supreme Court could use the challenge to significantly expand abortion rights."
Olafson says “personhood” amendments fail – because thoughtful pro-life people uinderstand the potential consequences.
