Ken Cuccinelli’s - And Mark Obenshain's - "Personhood" Problem

There is some sweet divine justice in seeing Ken Cuccinelli's extremism popping up to bite him in the ass.  The same goes for GOP attorney general candidate Mark Obenshain who is just as extreme as Cuccinelli even though Obenshain is striving desperately to put on a charade and convince Virginians that he's a moderate rather the far right religious extremist that he is in fact.  And one of the issues that continues to dog both of these unsavory candidates is their support for "personhood" laws in Virginia which would not only ban all abortions but also ban many forms of contraception and in vitro fertilization.  The Washington Post has an editorial that looks at Cuccinelli's (and by extension Mark Obenshain's) efforts to dodge and weave to avoid acknowledging their Christofascist agenda.  Here aare excerpts:

SIX YEARS ago, when Virginia’s General Assembly considered the so-called “personhood amendment” to the state constitution, which granted full rights to “preborn human being[s] from the moment of fertilization,” the list of co-sponsors was short. In the state Senate, five of 40 lawmakers, all Republicans, signed on. Among them were then-Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II and Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, the current GOP candidates for governor and attorney general, respectively.

There’s a reason the amendment had relatively few sponsors, and there’s a reason it failed even in the Republican-dominated House of Delegates. Not only would the amendment have banned abortion, as the sponsors clearly intended, it also provided an opening to prohibit common methods of birth control, including the pill and intrauterine devices.

Mr. Cuccinelli, now the attorney general, is understandably interested in casting himself as a moderate in the gubernatorial election. He has bristled lately at questions about his past positions on abortion and birth control.

In response to questions at a retirement community in Ashburn last week, Mr. Cuccinelli insisted that government should not interfere with contraception and denied that he ever backed legislation that could do so.  The facts suggest otherwise.

The practical effects of “personhood” measures, including the one in Virginia to which Mr. Cuccinelli affixed his name, would easily include banning the most popular forms of contraception. This is because the pill, as well as other forms of birth control, work partly by preventing the implantation of eggs in the uterus wall after they have been fertilized. If the “preborn” are protected “from the moment of fertilization,” as the 2007 bill demanded, then contraception — which defeats a fertilized egg’s chances of becoming a living being — could be prohibited. In fact, the legislation seems to demand it.

As the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists pointed out, “Some of the most effective and reliable forms of contraception — oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, and other forms of FDA-approved contraceptives — would be banned” by “personhood” measures.

The conclusion to be drawn?  Not only are Cuccinelli and Obenshain far right extremists, but they are also liars when they pretend that they never backed extremist legislation no doubt championed by The Family Foundation.

Mark Obenshain