Just as the Democrats failed to defend their majority in the House and nearly lost their lead in the Senate in the recent midterm elections, there was a ballot initiative in Colorado that – perhaps more thankfully – bit the dust as well.

Colorado’s proposed Amendment 62, according to the state’s website, would have applied “the term ‘person’ …concerning inalienable rights [and] equality of justice… to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

If successful, the legal definition of a person would be applied to a fetus inside its mother’s uterus, thereby making the murder of a pregnant woman – even one who was not aware of her own condition – a double homicide. By the same token, abortion would become instantaneously illegal – as murder –as the legal protections of the term “person” would be applied to fetuses.

Even worse, applying the term “person” to the unborn would limit access to contraceptive drugs for victims of rape or incest, because terminating a pregnancy – for any reason, under this law – would be murder.

Furthermore, it intrudes on the doctor-patient relationship and removes decision-making power on abortion issues from the affected people and gives it to the state government.

Coloradoans clearly saw those reasons as valid as the attempt to pass this amendment, according to CNN, failed with less than 25 percent of the vote. Clearly, people in Colorado weren’t fooled by a clever anti-abortion rights ballot initiative. Since they have failed to repeal abortion rights through the courts, activists have now resorted to underhanded ballot initiatives.

The real issue with this law is that applying the definition of a person – simultaneously calling it murder to abort a fetus – is not a conclusion that is supported by the facts.  The American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics does not prevent doctors from performing abortions, so long as the procedure is legal in their area. They permit this because the decision to end a pregnancy is not theirs, but is the mother’s.

Despite the arguments for passage of the Colorado law, the point would seem to be moot. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that, “The word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a Colorado law defining a person as an unborn fetus would – eventually – be declared unconstitutional for not conforming to the higher federal law on the issue.

At the end of Election Day, though, the attempt to prohibit abortion through back-door ballot initiatives failed, and reason prevailed over feelings. Of course, those who supported the measure probably feel differently, but, ultimately, their position is untenable. Trying to outlaw abortion by applying the term “person” to the unborn is clever, but was little more than a ruse meant to lure unsuspecting voters into supporting an amendment that directly contradicts Supreme Court decisions on exactly the same issue.

Now, all of that is not to say that I am pro- or anti-abortion. However, it is apparent that the facts – especially in this case – do not appear to be on the side of the anti-abortion activists. For one thing, the issue of whether or not abortion is legal or not has long since been settled by the Supreme Court, and despite numerous challenges of Roe v. Wade every year, refuses to reverse itself.

Further, the AMA – the largest association of medical professionals in the country, is content and feels ethically sound in permitting its members to perform abortions. If the AMA’s doctors are content that abortion conforms to their oath never to cause harm, then the rest of us should be satisfied with that response. After all, if anyone is in a position to know, it would be the thousands of doctors who make up the AMA.

Paul Thompson is a senior majoring in political science. His column runs bi-weekly on Thursdays.