iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

As Mississippi Debates Extreme 'Personhood' Amendment, Advocates Ask Where Are The Dems?

Personhood

First Posted: 09/23/11 10:44 AM ET Updated: 09/23/11 11:29 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Mississippians are set to vote on a ballot measure this November that would redefine the word "person" in the state constitution to include undeveloped embryos. Members of the medical and legal communities have raised concerns that the amendment could have unforeseen, far-reaching implications for women's health, such as banning certain kinds of birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research.

But state Democrats have been cautious of publicly opposing or even questioning the amendment for fear of alienating Mississippi's pro-life majority.

In defining a legal human being from the moment of fertilization, Initiative 26, often called the "Personhood Amendment," would criminalize abortion in Mississippi, with no exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother. Personhood USA, the advocacy group pushing the amendment, and the Yes on 26 campaign are painting the issue as a black-and-white abortion ban.

"Plain and simple, this seeks to establish human life in the womb," Greg Sanders, the executive director of the Yes on 26 campaign, told HuffPost. "Obviously there's no exception for rape and incest. It's a human life, no matter how it's created."

The American Civil Liberties Union has already challenged the personhood amendment in court, and it will likely face a host of other legal challenges if voters approve it in the November 8 election. In addition to flying in the face of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that prohibits states from banning abortions before fetal viability, the measure could ban certain forms of birth control that thin the lining of the uterus, thereby preventing an embryo from being able to attach.

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, says the language could also have a whole host of legal implications, including some that have nothing to do with women's health.

"What does it mean for property or inheritance law? What happens when you're trying to make districts for voting, and you have to consider fertilized eggs as legal persons?" she told HuffPost. "The meaning of the provision could come up in any number of lawsuits."

The Yes on 26 campaign says the amendment is not intended to outlaw birth control or in vitro fertilization -- only abortion and cloning. But Sanders acknowledged in an interview with HuffPost that "there are some things that will have to be worked out at a later date" after the amendment has passed.

The question is whether women in Mississippi are willing to trust politicians to interpret the amendment, after the fact, in such a way that protects their access to birth control pills and potentially life-saving abortions. Cristen Hemmins, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the amendment, said if the measure had been law when she was brutally raped by two men 20 years ago, the state would have forced her to carry the child she conceived.

"I would have had no options," Hemmins, 40, told HuffPost. "I just think it's a travesty that the government would force me to bear a child that I didn't want."

According to Hemmins, she was shot twice as she tried to escape the car where the rapists held her. One of the bullets pierced her uterus.

"I'm not sure my body could have withstood a pregnancy," she said. "My health and my life would have been at stake."

Hemmins and the No on 26 campaign said they are frustrated with the majority of Democratic politicians in Mississippi for refusing to publicly oppose the amendment.

"There's been a lot of 'off the record' sentiment, but it's really disappointing to not see state leadership publicly talk about the shortcomings and dangers of this initiative for the women and families of Mississippi," said Leola Reis, a spokesperson for the No on 26 campaign.

The personhood measure actually has a fair amount of support from Mississippi Democrats. Jim Hood, the Democratic Attorney General, endorsed the amendment in a statement and said he would defend it if it were challenged. A spokesperson for Hattiesburg Mayor Johnny DuPree, the Democratic candidate for governor, told HuffPost that that he supports the amendment as well, despite his "concerns about some of the ramifications."

But of all the Democrats in the State Senate, only two were willing to discuss the ballot measure at all, when called by HuffPost. Bob Dearing (Natchez) said he is "more than likely" going to vote for it himself, even though he recognizes that it's legally problematic.

"I'm not out there pushing it one way or the other, because I've got my own race to run," he told HuffPost. "It's going to be met with a court challenge -- you know that, and I know that. But when we get to 'right to life' issues, there's very little debate on them and they usually pass pretty handily."

State Sen. Deborah Dawkins (D-West Harrison County) was the only Democrat willing to publicly oppose the amendment, calling it "completely crazy and unenforceable." She said that while she normally defers to her constituents on issues like this, she can't bring herself to support a measure this extreme.

"My position on anything tends to be what the position of the people who elected me is, but sometimes there are these hot-button issues that people are not well-informed about because they don't know the whole story," she told HuffPost. "I don't think they understand that it would put an end to stem cell research and in vitro, and it is to the Republicans' benefit for them not to understand. But surely some other people besides me realize this is about controlling women, and I don't particularly like to be controlled."

Dawkins said that because of where she is in life, having grandchildren, being financially stable and nearing the end of her career, she is able to be more open about expressing her opinions on reproductive choice issues than her Democratic colleagues, who have more at stake.

"They pick their battles," she said. "They're at a different place in their life, they've got to have a job."

It's also possible that Mississippi Democrats are just more socially conservative than Democratic lawmakers in other states, many of whom have spent a disproportionate amount of their 2011 legislative sessions fighting anti-abortion and anti-family planning legislation. A spokesperson for the Mississippi Democratic Party, which has declined to take a position on Initiative 26, said the issue is not as simple as politicians caring only about their own reelection.

"There are Democrats in blue districts that support the initiative," said Rickey Cole, executive director of the state party. "This issue is not a litmus test as to whether one is a good Democrat or not, and I don’t know if it’s a good litmus test to see if one would get reelected or not. You can practice political science and quote Edmund Burke all day long, but it's really just a matter of a person's decision."

Despite the overall ambivalence of the Democratic Party, opponents of the amendment are holding out hope that at least one or two public officials will step up and defend women's health.

"Mississippi has dreadfully high rates of STDs, unplanned pregnancies, low birthweight babies, women without health insurance, and tons of other really important health issues that need the attention of the electorate instead of this divisive and misleading initiative," said Reis. "It's a selfish and shortsighted move on behalf of the elected officials to put politics before the health of women and families."

Jordan Howard contributed reporting.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Mississippians are set to vote on a ballot measure this November that would redefine the word "person" in the state constitution to include undeveloped embryos. Members of the medical an...
WASHINGTON -- Mississippians are set to vote on a ballot measure this November that would redefine the word "person" in the state constitution to include undeveloped embryos. Members of the medical an...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,333
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (34 total)
05:53 PM on 11/08/2011
I don't care if people believe that an embryo is a person and a rape victime should be forced to carry it. That belief is not only morally bankrupt that is facist. I will always fight facism. If any woman I know, rape victim or not, needs help getting an abortion I will help her. These people should be fought at every front.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pakaal
Pigs, in cages, on antibiotics
08:33 PM on 11/07/2011
"It's also possible that Mississippi Democrats are just more socially conservative"

Ya think?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Julie99
09:45 AM on 11/07/2011
Now these GOP numnuts want to ban not only abortion, but, all forms of birth control?
If this is true, I think this would pass as long as they send a "kinder" check as soon as the mom finds out she is pregnant, kinda like they do in Europe. 800 EU until child is 18. American currency is approx 1200 per month. This should balance out the idea of personhood.
GOP would approve cannibalism if they had to "pay" for the child.
They rarely put their pocket books forward in their agenda. Who pays for all these unwanted children? I see it is hard enough, since GW brought down the economy to even raise a child that is loved and wanted. I cannot imagine raising some poor kid in this economy. I feel sad for parents struggling and that have children that have lost their homes, and still looking for job.
photo
MarsAmbassador
Per angusta ad augusta
07:32 PM on 11/03/2011
So...if you drink for the 8 weeks before you find out that you're pregnant, are you going to be charged with assault or endangerment? Are they going to launch a murder investigation every time someone has an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage??
04:11 PM on 11/04/2011
"Are they going to launch a murder investigat­ion every time someone has an ectopic pregnancy"

That's just being silly. Obviously that would not happen.. because abortions required to save the life of the mother are ALSO illegal under this "Initiative". They're not going to investigate a woman who is dead, which is almost always the result of an untreated ectopic pregnancy.

According to this law, no one is allowed to value one life over the other so terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother, ILLEGAL. Does that make any sense? No. I totally understand why you would make that statement, naturally and reasonably assuming women whill continue to survive ectopic pregnancies, but you'd be wrong. If this passes, Ectopic pregnancies will be terminal conditions from now on in the great state of Mississippi.

Maybe they don't realize it in the backwards state of Mississippi but if the mother is allowed to die, the fetus is going too. It's not one or the other, it's one or both. That's going to be a real shame for women with emergency ectopic pregnancies or pre-eclampsia who don't have enough time to cross the border and get treatment in a state where people still have brains.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pakaal
Pigs, in cages, on antibiotics
08:36 PM on 11/07/2011
"We had to destroy the village to save it" becomes "We had to kill the mother and baby in order to save them."
photo
MarsAmbassador
Per angusta ad augusta
07:30 PM on 11/03/2011
Roe v. Wade isn't exclusivel­­y about abortion. It's about personal privacy and legal establishm­­ent of the fact that the government doesn't own our bodies. It's the ULTIMATE ruling regarding privacy, personal freedom, physical autonomy and liberty from tyranny of the government­­. It ruled that YOU own your body, not the government (or corporatio­­ns or individual­­s). THAT is where the legal basis for abortion comes from. It's amazing to me how many people don't understand this.

The plutocrats want to own everything­­, including us. They have employed the religious right to oppose Roe v. Wade on the abortion and religious grounds (while promising them power in return), and the corporate oligarchy attacks our privacy from the other side, but it's a smokescree­­n for their proxy war against owning us wholesale. Strike Roe v. Wade down and you destroy our personal liberty far greater than anything you could possibly imagine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
02:42 AM on 11/04/2011
Boy, this article is practically making me physically ill. Us women--I mean the LIVING, BREATHING, HUMAN BEING KIND--THE ONES OF US WHO ARE ALIVE--may very well be relegated to the status of third-class citizens, kept around only to be reproductive vessels for these new "persons" who will start as the grand total of a friggin' fertilized egg. But the sum of our beings and our entire lives? Who the hell cares? They're to be declared worth less than that.

I get the other reason for this is to make fat old white males happy, but you know, that's not really working for me either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalbarbwire
living for the day!!!!
08:07 PM on 10/29/2011
I don't think the women that are pro life in Ms. understand what this law will mean..it is extreme to say the least...i'm sure may of these pro life women are using birth control....and with this new law you CHOICE TO USE forms of BIRTH CONTROL... will be taken away... so educate yourselves before you do something that all women in Ms.. will come to regret...
05:45 PM on 10/27/2011
Bring it on. It's time to let this issue come to a head once and for all. Women have become too complacent about their reproductive freedoms. If this extreme personhood law goes into effect, women would be stripped of all of their reproductive freedoms. Not only would abortions become illegal, so would most forms of birth control and even fertility treatments. Maybe this is just what we need to finally get women (and their partners) mobilized. More than the immigration issue, more than the healthcare issue, this would get us all right back to the dark ages. And given that it would come to a head in the middle of the 2012 elections, it could have the same effect as the gay marriage issue during the 2004 presidential elections. Let's hope it all falls into place that way.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mratcheson
11:42 PM on 10/28/2011
I did have an ectopic pregnancy a million years ago, and although I didn't actually understand it at the time, my doctors chose to save my life, and end the pregnancy. Without question, the child couldn't possibly have survived, I mean, it was in the wrong place, so it wasn't much of a choice.

Under this law, both of us would have died. Shame on Mississippi and Alabama, for even considering such a cruel law. Stand strong, women in both states, we need you to continue to contribute to our country. These people seem to want to simply eliminate women. If anything is evil, this mindset is.
05:58 PM on 11/08/2011
Men have become complacent about many of their rights. Should we start stripping them of their fundemental rights. This bill is facist and mysoginist, but that does not change the fact that it is good that young women take their rights for granted. They simply expect them. There is nothing wrong with that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ruffmama
your ad here.....inquire within.
05:28 PM on 10/27/2011
well what about when a woman suffers an ectopic pregnancy? This is when a fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. If the pregnancy is allowed to proceed it will result in a ruptured fallopian tube and a dangerous and deadly situation for the mother. These pregnancies are immediately terminated to preserve the life and health of the mother. Will they just rather see these women die rather than "kill" that fertilized embryo??
08:06 PM on 10/27/2011
from what i understand, amendment 26 fails to recognize ectopic pregnancies and has no exception for pregnancies that put the life of the mother in danger, so abortion would be illegal and the mother and health care providers would be suspect to criminal investigation if the fetus is destroyed, even if it was to save the mother...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:38 PM on 10/03/2011
I think we need to make Mississippi and Alabama part of another state. Neither state has common sense when it cones to governing. Maybe call it Dixie.
Louisiana could join too.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
04:41 PM on 11/02/2011
We tried that 150 years ago, and y'all sent down an army to force us back in the Union!
photo
MarsAmbassador
Per angusta ad augusta
03:07 PM on 11/04/2011
That was the biggest mistake in American history. I think we'd all be better off if the Union had been divided.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeannette Lacey
03:37 PM on 10/01/2011
"Obviously there's no exception for rape and incest. It's a human life, no matter how it's created."

So that philosophy only holds for embroyos...I guess if a mother's life is on the line and she needs an abortion, then she does not qualify as a "person"? Here's my problem with this bill: it makes a blip of goey flesh - which is unable to live on its own - a person, yet takes away that consideration from a living, breathing human being who is standing right there in the doctor's office in need of life saving treatment.

I have often thought that many ultr-conservative minded folks (usually men) would like nothing better than to return the female population to the status of property and chattel. Bills like serve only to instill that idea even more!
01:33 PM on 10/11/2011
So at what point is the embryo life? Check out some pics of a baby at 5 weeks.
10:13 AM on 10/13/2011
Ummm, how is that relevant? At what point does the embryo's "rights" exceed mine? Until you can carry an embryo to full term and go through the process of labor, Keep your penis out of this discussion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FrenchCheeseMuseum
Thankfully, reality has a liberal bias.
02:41 PM on 10/13/2011
Yes and as a matter of fact, our congress is this VERY DAY trying to get hospitals to let women die instead of getting the surgery they need. THIS is what our congress is concerned with. THIS.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nightowl007
Got Occupied?
12:42 AM on 10/21/2011
Yes they are and MS is about to vote on it and all my residents in my facility have voted "yes" on their absentee ballots today! That is 120 votes. Being in the bible belt this one will be a landslide!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
YupIndeed
We are all made of star stuff.
02:35 PM on 09/30/2011
Not only does Mississippi want to ban abortion and declare personhood at the time of fertilization, but over 40% of the state representatives think interracial marriage should be outlawed.

It just sickens me that there are still people out there who are more than happy to deny rights to so many people.
10:26 PM on 10/01/2011
Where in THE world did you get that 40% statistic?! Ridiculous.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalbarbwire
living for the day!!!!
08:21 PM on 10/29/2011
there are many links to the % of voters that want it outlawed.. but i dont think to many of the people will say how they really feel...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pakaal
Pigs, in cages, on antibiotics
08:48 PM on 11/07/2011
Actually, no, the stats are not quite right. Bad news is, it's 46% not 40%

Good news is, the 46% is limited to Republicans.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/08/46-percent-of-mississippi-republicans-want-interracial-marriage/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FloridaLAW
This Day, This Moment, Right Now!
01:46 PM on 10/04/2011
Please provide a link to that 40% statistic.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nightowl007
Got Occupied?
12:43 AM on 10/21/2011
She is a crank!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalbarbwire
living for the day!!!!
08:19 PM on 10/29/2011
i think they mean the voters.. i dont think to many elected people will go on the record saying that...my husband and i lived in Ms.. for about 4 yrs..so i'd have to say its about right...there are many interracial couples there but i hope many people that pro choice leave the state if this extreme law goes through
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BrianPK80
Wisdom is having more questions than answers.
08:09 PM on 09/26/2011
It's under-inclusive. They forgot to include corporations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeannette Lacey
03:38 PM on 10/01/2011
I was almost going to say that!! Fanned and fav'd!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
politicky
just follow the $$$
04:32 PM on 09/26/2011
Dear anti-abortionists,

Are you ready, willing and able to adopt an unwanted child?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeannette Lacey
03:43 PM on 10/01/2011
No, they are not. I have many friends who are anti-abortion and not one has stepped up to adopt an unwanted, potentially sick or "crack" baby.

Personally these ideas fit right into the "fire and brimstone" religious dogmas that these people hold dear: that a woman should be eternally punished for conceiving that child (and if it was by rape, then what was SHE doing to entice the criminals in the first place?). Therefore, that women should suffer, wallow in poverty and "do penance" for her sin by having to deal with the kid alone. OH..and don't forget; let's give the child the shaft: no health care, no government nutritional programs, no education, and no welfare......that would be "godless socialism".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FloridaLAW
This Day, This Moment, Right Now!
01:50 PM on 10/04/2011
You are demonizing an entire group of people without any basis in fact what so ever! There are MANY who are against abortion and who have adopted.
10:27 PM on 10/01/2011
YES! However, it is nearly impossible to adopt an American child in America.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrea Blackwell
Why watch the news? The truth's on Comedy Central!
01:18 AM on 09/26/2011
My daughter remembers choosing me and told me what she saw when her spirit joined me. It was past my second trimester. I know by her description of where I was when she came to me. So there!
I wonder who's cashing in on this mess?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DovS
06:35 PM on 09/25/2011
The most obvious constitutional challenge is the same one that struck down the anti-sodomy laws, the right to privacy. Birth-control pills prevent pregnancy not by preventing fertilization but by preventing the fertilized egg from attached to the uterine lining, thus creating a possible violation of law under this proposed amendment. Many women take the pill not for birth-control but to regulate a variety of hormone-related disorders. You can't outlaw the pill just because it *can* be used to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall any more than you can outlaw cough syrup just because it *can* be used to make meth. So use of the pill could not be illegal but having sex while taking the pill would be. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't outlaw people having sex in private. This amendment is so far-reaching that it would seek to make consensual sex between a married man and woman illegal if the woman was on the pill, an obviously gross violation of the constitutional right to privacy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
squirrely girl
Assistant Professor ~ Developmental Psychology
04:33 PM on 09/26/2011
Some birth control pills act in the way you describe but not all. Others function by suppressing ovulation (the releasing of an egg).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
YupIndeed
We are all made of star stuff.
02:33 PM on 09/30/2011
True. But to deny a woman the option of choosing what type of pill will work best for her would not be good.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BrianPK80
Wisdom is having more questions than answers.
08:08 PM on 09/26/2011
That would make sense if the Court were consistent. But the determining factor in a Court's decision is not precedent or the rule of law; it is simply the personnel comprising the Court.