Challenge to Nevada personhood initiative expected

By Cy Ryan

Published Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 | 3:32 p.m.

Updated Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009 | 6:04 p.m.

CARSON CITY – A suit has been filed in district court to stop a proposed constitutional amendment to that would prohibit abortions and affect decisions by people who want to die.

The initiative petition, filed Oct. 21 with the Secretary of State’s office, would amend the Nevada Constitution to give “the inalienable right to life for everyone, young or old, healthy or ill, conscious or unconscious, born or unborn.”

But the suit filed Thursday in district court in Carson City alleges the petition “seeks to impose sweeping and drastic changes to the Nevada Constitution and countless provisions of state and local laws.”

Elisa Maser, a member of the Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, said the right-to-life petition “has misleading and unclear language.” If passed, she said it “would prevent a woman from making private medical decisions in consultation with her doctor and family.”

And it would change thousands of laws in the state, Maser said.

The proposed initiative petition, filed by a group called Personhood Nevada, would need to gather 97,002 signatures to qualify it for the 2010 election ballot, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. And it would have to be passed at two consecutive elections. Those names on the petition are Richard Ziser, Olaf Vancura and Kenneth Wilson.

The petition says it would guarantee “that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It eliminates discrimination against Nevadans at the beginning of life and prohibits state intrusion in end of life decisions.”

Filing the suit were Emmily Bristol of Las Vegas, Mindy Hsu who is a registered pharmacist in Sparks and Dr. William Ramos, who is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist in Las Vegas.

The suit filed by Carson City lawyer John Griffin said the right-to-life petition is invalid because it violates the “core principles of the single-subject rule by proposing multiple unrelated and sweeping changes to Nevada law, while utterly failing to give voters notice of these changes."

The suit said the initiative petition “would redefine persons in the law to include fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses, then it necessarily embraces a multitude of constitutional and statutory subjects.”

It says the initiative petition imposes “wide-ranging and diverse” subjects. This petition, says the suit, covers not only right to life but such subjects as search and seizure, criminal laws and eligibility for government benefits.

The petition is described in the suit as “logrolling at its most extreme and certainly does not promote informed decision.”

The suit, which seeks to prevent the measure from being on the 2010 ballot, says the initiative would “take away Nevadans’ existing rights to a range of constitutionally protected and legal medical services, including abortion and contraception.

“Proponents’ proposed changes could also ban treatment for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and infertility, and prohibit stem cell and other biomedical research,” says the suit.

Joining in filing the suit was the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.

In asking for an injunction against the initiative petition, the suit says the petition “fails to comply with the single-subject requirement, and the description of effect is inaccurate and wholly misleading.”