Balancing Act: Why Granting Legal Personhood to Nature is a Step Too Far
Recently, I stumbled upon a development out of Utah that really got me thinking about the whole concept of nature and how we, as a society, assign rights. Utah lawmakers have moved forward with a bill titled the “Utah Legal Personhood Amendments,” which essentially says that only humans can have the legal rights and obligations that come with personhood. This bill is a direct counter to a movement that’s been gaining traction among environmental activists, which seeks to grant legal rights to nature.
House Bill 249 is pretty comprehensive. It covers a wide range of non-human entities, stating clearly that artificial intelligence, inanimate objects, bodies of water, land, real property, atmospheric gases, and even animals cannot be granted legal personhood. This legislation came to life, interestingly enough, because of a push to grant such status to the Great Salt Lake.
The politician behind the bill, Republican State Rep. Walt Brooks, shared that the idea first came to his attention somewhat humorously from a constituent. But as he dug deeper, he realized it wasn’t a joke. His rationale? Well, he mentioned a rather unique example about dairy cows needing to be pregnant to produce milk and jokingly questioned if getting a cow pregnant without its consent would be considered sexual harassment if…
