Amendment 67: A “no” vote helps LGBT families, too

Some same-sex couples rely on in vitro fertilization to start their families, but opponents of Amendment 67 warn that the far-reaching measure on the ballot this November will put those families at risk.

“It was amazing,” says Andie Lyons, reflecting on the day she and her wife, Laurie Lynch, discovered they were having a child. “I think the real moment for both of us was when we went in at seven weeks for a very early ultrasound and saw the baby. All of the tears and the sadness and the struggle finally resulted in what we’ve been dreaming about for years.”

Andie had been attempting to get pregnant for two years, frustrated with numerous failed attempts. She first tried intrauterine insemination (IUI) where the egg is fertilized by inserting the sperm from a donor directly into the uterus. Every attempt was unsuccessful.

“There was a certain amount of loss that happened every month it didn’t work,” says Andie, “and so there was this huge amount of grief that was kind of cyclical.”

The couple’s doctor recommended in vitro fertilization (IVF) where the egg is fertilized outside of the womb, and the embryo is then inserted back into the uterus. Andie is now 16 weeks pregnant, with the newest member of the family arriving in April.

“There is a certain amount of magic about having babies. They can do everything known to science and it still won’t always work,” says Andie, adding that she retook the pregnancy test at least 10 more times when it came back positive. “How could this be true, something that had not been true for two years? We kind of thought it
was impossible.”

Andie met Laurie five years ago while working at Rainbow Alley, a program designed for LGBT youth headquartered at the Colorado GLBT Center in Denver. “Laurie came in to do a theater program with the kids at Rainbow Alley. I thought she was cute, so I asked her out and things went from there.”

Laurie and Andie had a wedding ceremony three years ago to honor their commitment to each other, even though at the time Colorado did not recognize their relationship. They obtained a civil union last year and got a marriage license from Boulder County earlier this year.

Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Hillary Hill issued more than 200 marriage licenses in July against multiple requests by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to stop, this after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Utah’s marriage ban to be unconstitutional on June 25.

The couple is very excited about the Supreme Court’s Oct. 6 historic decision to allow the 10^th Circuit’s ruling to remain, allowing gay marriage for the first time in Colorado.

“Obviously the timing for us couldn’t be better,” says Andie. “[Same-sex marriage] certainly helps our case in terms of having some of those protections for us.”

And with the success of IVF, the couple has the option for their child to grow up with a baby brother or sister, but Andie is worried that the upcoming personhood amendment on this November’s ballot could eliminate that possibility. “In vitro, from my reading of Amendment 67, won’t be an option anymore.”

The couple has four additional embryos which have been frozen, and it’s uncertain what the fate of those embryos will be should the amendment pass.

“There’s a huge concern,” says Andie. “These are our embryos. We have the right to do with them what we will, whether that’s producing children for our family or — once we’ve reached the number of children we’re comfortable having — donating them to science or giving them to
another couple.”

Cara DeGette, communications director for VoteNo67.com, told Out Front that Andie and Laurie’s concerns are not unwarranted.

“Amendment 67 includes the term ‘unborn human being’ as the definition of person in the Colorado Criminal Code,” Cara explains, “and so by inserting that into the criminal code, effectively what you’re doing is extending legal and constitutional rights at every stage of development of a pregnancy, all the way back to a fertilized egg.”

This means the measure would ban all forms of abortion, even in circumstances of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. In addition, the amendment would restrict access to various forms of birth control.

“It would also, in effect, criminalize women and the doctors who try to treat women during a pregnancy,” says Cara. “So a woman who has had a miscarriage [would be a felon] if Amendment 67 were law. That miscarriage would be considered a person — the same as you and I. A prosecutor would be obligated to investigate the circumstances of that miscarriage because that miscarriage is the same as a person.”

This causes serious challenges for couples who utilize IVF. Before the procedure can even begin, embryos are tested for viability to determine the probable success rate in order to reduce the number of miscarriages. Embryos which are unviable are discarded, effectively leaving the entire process open to prosecution under the Colorado Criminal Code as it would for a person.

“And that’s the other component of what Amendment 67 would do,” adds Cara, “in that it would ban, effectively, in vitro for couples who want to have children.”

IVF births around the county are on the rise. CNN reported earlier this year that there has been a record number of IVF births in the US, with 2,000 more IVF births in 2012 than in 2011, putting the total number at 61,740 at clinics represented by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Many of those couples who use IVF are part of the LGBT community, some of which use IVF as a last resort. “These kinds of decisions are so critical,” says Cara. “When to have a family, how to have a family, making sure that pregnant women are protected and are not criminalized, not allowing the government to come into the personal, private lives during our most vulnerable times.”

This is not the first time Coloradans have voted on a personhood amendment, rejecting similar measures in 2008 and 2010. But this year, the number of voters supporting the bill is higher. “The initial polling was really alarming for us” says Cara, “because people don’t understand what it would actually do.”

Out Front reached out to the organization lobbying for Amendment 67, AVoiceforBrady.com, sponsored by the nonprofit Personhood USA, but several requests for a comment on this article were not returned.