One of the more extreme and dangerous ideas spawned by the anti-women’s rights movement is “personhood” — the idea that life begins at the moment of conception. This means that all abortions are actually murders. The conservatives who think that this issue is far more important than working on economic policy — or anything productive or worthwhile — have been pushing personhood measures for the last few years, and the first one just passed in North Dakota.

This personhood ban is a constitutional amendment, so voters have to approve it on the ballot next November before it becomes a law. Whether they do or not, the 57-35 vote in the state House of Representatives to approve the bill is frightening in itself. For one thing, the amendment violates Roe v. Wade, which protects abortions within the first trimester of pregnancy. But more importantly, it violates women’s fundamental rights to privacy and to make their own healthcare decisions.

The amendment gives embryos the same rights as U.S. citizens while violating the rights of their mothers. The decision to have an abortion is deeply personal — it should be made between a woman and her doctor, without the interference of legislators. What is more, abortions can be essential for women’s health when something goes wrong with the pregnancy. North Dakota legislators are attempting to take women’s reproductive health decisions entirely out of their hands and even out of the hands of their doctors, instead declaring themselves the authorities on conception, pregnancy and abortion.

This bill aims to protect “children” — now defined as unborn embryos and fetuses — but, like all anti-abortion measures, it focuses on protecting the health of the unborn child while ignoring that child’s welfare once he enters the world and actually becomes a person. A Republican representative from North Dakota who voted against the bill pointed out that she has introduced what she believes are true pro-life measures: a bill that would provide prenatal care to pregnant minors and another that would help single moms receive child care. Neither of these measures, which would affect the health and well-being of actual, living children, passed this legislature that is so concerned with the “right to life.”

Personhood gives a ridiculous amount of rights to unborn fetuses based on controversial scientific evidence — and in reality is based not on science at all but on religious beliefs. Its proponents fight with all their might to protect embryos, while simultaneously expressing outrage at the idea that these children should have subsidized access to early childhood education or that, when they’re eventually born to mothers who didn’t want to have them, they could be adopted by two parents of the same gender. Personhood is not just unconstitutional and harmful to women. It is harmful to the children who are allegedly under protection — that is, until they enter the world.

A version of this article was published in the Monday, March 25 print edition. Jess Littman is a staff columnist. Email her at [email protected].