Utah lawmakers push bill to block nature’s personhood

Utah Lawmakers Take a‌ Stand ‌Against Granting Inherent Rights to⁤ Nature

Lawmakers in Utah have made a‍ bold move⁤ this week to prevent the granting of legal ⁣personhood‌ to⁤ nature, a movement⁣ that has ‍been ‍gaining momentum among environmental activists.

The proposed legislation, known as House Bill 249 or the⁢ “Utah Legal Personhood Amendments,” aims ⁢to declare‌ that ⁣only human⁢ beings can⁤ enjoy the legal rights and obligations of personhood. The ‍bill was passed by the Utah House‍ on Tuesday ⁣and will ⁣now be considered ‍by the Senate.

The bill explicitly prohibits⁢ the granting of legal personhood to any artificial intelligence, inanimate object, body of water, ‌land, real property, atmospheric gas, astronomical object, weather, plant, nonhuman animal, and “any other ⁢member of a taxonomic domain that is‌ not a human being.”

The bill was introduced by Republican State⁤ Rep. Walt Brooks in response⁢ to efforts by environmental activists to grant‌ legal personhood to⁤ the Great Salt Lake. Brooks, who initially thought the request was a joke, conducted his ⁤own‌ research and concluded that the⁢ bill was‌ a ⁤matter⁤ of “common sense.”

“I had to explain to my‌ kids that, when you go to a dairy, those ⁤cows are​ pregnant​ because they need⁤ to be if they’re going to‍ give milk. But, did anybody get the permission of​ a cow⁤ to get them pregnant? ⁣So, if they were a person, that‍ would ⁣be sexual harassment,”

Democratic State Rep. Joel Briscoe, on the​ other hand,‌ argued that nonhuman entities and ‍beings should have legal rights​ similar to corporations. He expressed uncertainty ‍about whether granting ⁢personhood to the‍ Great Salt Lake would be a good idea, but ⁢emphasized the need for more detailed information before making a decision.

“What I ‍do know is this: before I put into code,‍ and vote to put into code, a prohibition⁤ against something ​that​ I’m told is dangerous without​ any examples, I would really love to see some detail,”

Brooks stressed the importance of defining terms based ⁤on reality, ‌drawing a parallel ‌between‌ the hesitation to grant personhood to nature⁣ and the ongoing ⁣confusion surrounding gender‍ definitions.

“What I do know is this: a person is a person, and​ a tree is‍ not, neither is an animal,⁤ neither is a ‌stream, neither is the air.‌ I bet you if you went back ten years ago, no one had a question about what a woman was and what a man was, but ⁤we do get confused,”

Last⁣ month, Brooks expressed his belief that⁣ assigning personhood⁣ to nonhuman entities is ⁣not an appropriate ​preservation effort.​ He emphasized the ‍importance of‍ finding alternative ways ⁣to preserve and protect ​animals,⁢ rivers, streams, wetlands, and lakes.

CLICK ⁤HERE TO GET THE‌ DAILYWIRE+ APP

Similar⁢ measures have been⁢ taken by environmental activists in‍ other states. Last October, Milwaukee County in Wisconsin passed a​ resolution granting nature equal rights ​to mankind⁣ in order to provide greater protections for the county’s ⁤bodies of water.

The movement to grant ⁣inherent ⁢rights⁢ to nature traces back to the establishment of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental ⁣Science-Policy Platform on ⁤Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2012. IPBES considers granting inherent​ rights to nature as a significant public policy instrument.

The bill received overwhelming ⁣support in the Utah House, with 58⁤ members voting in ​favor and only​ 11 against. Notably, only one Democrat, State Rep. Ashlee Matthews, voted in favor of the bill.

What are⁢ the potential consequences, both positive and negative, of granting ​legal personhood to nature?

⁤ Quote>

“We⁢ live in a society where there’s a lot of ⁢confusion about what those words mean, and the lack of clarity leads to ⁤a breakdown in communication and​ understanding. ‍If we start to blur ​the lines between what is human and what is not, we risk losing sight of what it means ⁤to be human and the value that each individual person⁣ brings to our society,”

The debate surrounding the granting of legal personhood⁣ to nature has been ongoing around⁢ the world. In recent years, countries like ‍New Zealand and India have recognized the⁣ legal rights of ‌rivers and ecosystems. These initiatives aim to⁤ protect the environment and hold polluters accountable. However, critics argue that such measures would have ‌unintended consequences and could hinder economic development and human progress.

In the United States, granting legal personhood to nature has gained momentum with various communities passing ⁤”rights of nature” legislation. ​These ​laws aim to recognize the rights​ of nature to exist, flourish, and regenerate its natural systems. However, critics, such as those in Utah, argue that such legislation goes against the ⁢existing legal framework and could give nonhuman entities the ability to sue or take legal action.

The Utah Legal⁤ Personhood Amendments bill is seen by its supporters⁣ as a necessary step to prevent potential legal and economic complications. They argue that by reaffirming that legal personhood is exclusive to humans, Utah‌ can⁣ maintain a clear and consistent legal ‍framework. They also state‍ that it is⁣ the responsibility of‌ humans to protect and care for the environment, rather than ​giving nature legal rights that may conflict with human interests and needs.

Opponents of the bill, on ⁤the other hand, argue that it is necessary to expand the concept of legal personhood to include nonhuman entities in order to address pressing environmental issues. ‍They believe that recognizing the legal rights of nature can help‌ ensure a more sustainable and balanced approach to development and protect ecosystems for future generations.

The passing of House Bill 249 by the Utah House is a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding the legal rights⁣ of nature. As the bill moves to the Senate for further consideration, it‌ remains to be seen how this issue will be ultimately resolved in Utah. The ‍outcome of this legislation ⁢could potentially set a precedent for other ⁢states⁤ facing similar debates.

Regardless of ​the final decision, the discussion around granting legal personhood to nature reflects the growing urgency to find innovative and effective ways to protect the environment. Balancing the needs of human society with the preservation ⁣of nature is a complex challenge that requires‌ careful consideration of the legal, economic, and environmental implications. Ultimately, the goal should ‍be to ensure the long-term ​sustainability of both human civilization and the natural ⁤world‍ we depend on.