Rachel Maddow Rips Anti-Abortion, Gay Marriage Bills (VIDEO)

Rachel Maddow gave her Thursday viewers an update on drives to ban gay marriage and restrict abortion in states across the country.

She opened the segment by discussing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that has been placed on the ballot in North Carolina. Noting that there are dozens of states with similar constitutional amendments, Maddow said that this was the reason rights are usually not put to a popular test.

"When we vote on minority rights of many, if not all, stripes in this country, we tend to vote no," she said. "It's part of the concept of rights: they're not supposed to be up for a vote."

Maddow then turned to an effort in Mississippi to redefine "personhood," saying that it begins at "the moment of fertilization" or cloning. She pointed out that many forms of birth control work by stopping the fertilization of an egg, or the implantation of a fertilized egg.

"Does that mean that using birth control is going to be murder in Mississippi?" she asked. Moreover, she said, the mission to redefine "personhood" has spread across the country. "The quest for conservative control for every uterus and fallopian tube in America continues!" she quipped.

Maddow speculated that, though Americans love to "vote against each other's rights," banning birth control might be a step too far.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

[DWAYNE CORREA]

04:07 PM on 10/03/2011

"Americans are voting to take away their own rights." Apparently Americans are destroying America and all it stands for. Observe. It's happening. This is coherent with Hopi and indigenous people's prophecy.

[Oneandoneandone]

02:54 PM on 10/03/2011

I really love this gal sometimes. This is one of those times. Thank you, Rachel!

[Oneandoneandone]

02:53 PM on 10/03/2011

[ecyornagol]

10:03 AM on 10/03/2011

Maddow is just plugging her own agenda, like everyone else does.

[Oneandoneandone]

02:55 PM on 10/03/2011

Yeah because a gay woman who doesn't live in Mississippi really needs to worry about whether or not she can use birth control or get an abortion in Mississippi.

Totally her agenda yeah uh huh okie dokie

[ecyornagol]

10:02 AM on 10/03/2011

Personally, I believe that research should be done to determine when a fetus shows signs of consciousness as in the ability to feel pain. That's really when life begins and where the cut off for abortions should be. How can we justify ripping a conscious fetus into pieces?

[Oneandoneandone]

02:56 PM on 10/03/2011

Learn about abortions before you talk about them.

[ecyornagol]

06:13 PM on 10/03/2011

Oh, you're the expert? When does a fetus feel pain?

[Robert Terry]

08:51 PM on 10/03/2011

So when did you become the creator of the world. Life begins in my books when it is started therefore abortion is murder plan and simple. You kill a baby you committed murder.

[reasonshouldrule]

09:43 PM on 10/03/2011

Ah, I see God has joined this thread this evening.

[ecyornagol]

01:57 PM on 10/04/2011

But the world doesn't live by your "book". Adam was just a lump of clay before God breathed life into him. That's what I am proposing- that consciousness is the first evidence of life. It may be at fertilization, I don't know. Also, abortion laws will never be changed based on your "book" and so, babies will keep dying. A realistic way to save babies is to agree upon a criteria of when life begins and using consciousness as evidence of life may be a reasonable criteria that could persuade enough politicians to reverse Row vs. Wade and implement laws that would save most if not all of the 1.2 million babies aborted in the U.S. every year.

[SteveDenver]

12:47 AM on 10/03/2011

Marriage equality that includes gays and lesbians has been in effect for a few years and in those states people questioned say NOTHING has changed and NOTHING disturbing has happened.

All the states whipping their fearful populations into a froth over NOTHING seem to be the same ones that went nuts over school segregation and marriage between people of different skin color. (Won't their heads really come undone when they realize gay and lesbian couples have been getting married anyway -- without legal recognition, just for love.)

[fklb]

10:57 PM on 10/03/2011

Actually, folks in those states are losing their jobs and getting sued. People who believe in gender-diversity in marriage are being sued by unigender couples who want gender-segregated marriage to be honored by others, including those who have religious beliefs that are opposed to gender-segregated marriage.
And we don't yet know the fall-out on the children raised by gender-segregated couples.

[Angel1999]

12:03 AM on 10/04/2011

Try and rephrase this in some way that makes sense.

[Binea]

12:15 AM on 10/03/2011

ah..the political party's favorite divisive issue. can we fight about it AFTER we get this corrupt system fixed ? Give the power back to the people ? we need a constitutional government that allows us these freedoms to use the power of our voice and vote to FIX things..seems like it's all just symbolic anymore.

[peterhenry]

12:03 AM on 10/03/2011

And here's to the government of Mississippi
In the swamp of their bureaucracy they're always bogging down
And criminals are posing as the mayors of the towns
They're hoping that no one sees the sights and hears the sounds
And the speeches of the governor are the ravings of a clown
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of
Mississippi find yourself another country to be part of

------ Phil Ochs

[Abelardo Perez]

11:57 PM on 10/02/2011

if a person is a person at the moment of fertilization...therefore a corporation can NOT be a person, right?

[billc516]

09:37 AM on 10/03/2011

Justice Stevens Wrote, "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people..." Only in a world of Koch-bought justices can corporations be seen as people. You can't apply logic to it.

[Trojan Mouse]

10:07 AM on 10/02/2011

This is the best she can come up with for topic matter? No wonder MSNBC is in the toilet.

[Nopinky]

11:45 AM on 10/02/2011

I'm sorry you find constitutional rights so trivial. Many of us disagree and find them to be fairly relevant to the American way of life.

[Trojan Mouse]

03:06 PM on 10/02/2011

I love the constitution. What does it have to do with RM being such a bore?

[Rambrewster]

12:49 PM on 10/02/2011

You're funny!

[SteveDenver]

01:43 AM on 10/02/2011

We have defeated the Personhood Amendment TWICE in Colorado, and a lot has come up in the fight.
1. There is no scientific process for determining the "moment of fertilization."
2. This potentially criminalizes in-vitro fertilization, which has allowed 1000s of infertile couples to conceive and have children. This is because numerous eggs are harvested from a woman, fertilized, and the most promising candidates are implanted. According to the Personhood Amendment, ALL of the fertilized eggs are now "persons" and destroying them would be illegal.
3. Under this amendment, every pregnant woman who miscarries or must terminate a pregnancy due to complications is a candidate for prosecution, as is any doctor who assists her.
4. This amendment violates freedom of religion. Judaism, for one, purports that life begins when the baby exits the womb and the new person is independent of the mother.
5. If Mississippi laws are anything like Colorado laws, over 30,000 statutes and pieces of legislation will have to be modified to reflect the new definition of personhood.

[glockman]

06:48 PM on 10/01/2011

That's not even witty. That's just pathetic.

[glockman]

06:03 PM on 10/01/2011

""When we vote on minority rights of many, if not all, stripes in this country, we tend to vote no," she said. "It's part of the concept of rights: they're not supposed to be up for a vote."

I enthusiastically concur. And I support gay marriage, and am pro choice.

But I wonder, how does Ms. Maddow feel about the second amendment?

[Angel1999]

11:41 AM on 10/03/2011

Does it have anything to do with minority rights?

[glockman]

04:41 PM on 10/03/2011

My question goes to the heart of the debate about rights. Both sides often speak about the rights they believe in support, while denying rights they don't agree with.

The right doesn't believe in the right to a safe abortion or gay marriage.

Many on the left don't believe in the right of firearms ownership.

When they take these positions, neither can claim to be a champion of rights.

[thereisonlyoneparty]

04:39 PM on 10/01/2011

This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of rights.   Rights are not "inalienable" or "unalienable."  Rights are not "self-evident."  Rights are a construction of people.  There are no "natural rights."   Rights cannot even be declared.  For rights to exist a people have to agree to them and create a system for enforcement.  No rights exist beyond what a people say exist.

This view that rights just are is wrong and rather sad.   It tends to take credit away from people in determining and creating rights and creates a situation where rights are viewed as these magic powers invented by Jesus or Xenu that have always existed and will always existed exactly as they are.

There also seems to be a failure to recognize the history and evolution of rights.  The Constitution of the United States created rights for a very specific group of people and excluded others.

[glockman]

06:07 PM on 10/01/2011

"Rights are a constructi­on of people. There are no "natural rights." "

Your understanding of rights is severely flawed, and completely unfathomable.

People don't create rights. Governments don't create right. God didn't create rights. But rights are natural in that by just being born into the human race, you have the individual freedom to do just about anything you want to do, so long as the manner in which you practice your individual liberties does not cause undue burden on others.

Luckily, your views on rights is shared only by a very few, um, insignificants that it won't make a difference.

[thereisonlyoneparty]

08:38 PM on 10/01/2011

Totally erroneous.

My "natural" freedoms are those that exist to all other animals.  Like how a chimpanzee or polar bear has the freedom to kill the offspring of another and possibly eat them.  Or how a troop of chimps has the freedom to attack another for their resources.  Or how a dolphin pod has the freedom to kill porpoises for sport.

Rights are specific legal abilities that exist only as a result of codification and enforcement.

[Audacityscape]

10:29 PM on 10/03/2011

So you're saying that it's a natural right to be able to own a gun? A gun that is the very epitome of an unnatural creation?

[Nopinky]

11:54 AM on 10/02/2011

Wow you just failed all over the place. Here is the quote you're struggling with:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
The founders of this country devised a system of government designed to secure the rights granted to man by God - not to grant those rights for themselves. Life, liberty ,and the pursuit of happiness are the rights of all mankind and government's role is to protect and defend them. That's it. Nothing about magic powers - just the right to live your life.
Just because the Constitution wasn't perfect from the outset doesn't undermine its inherent truth or the fact that the founders did what they could with every intention that future generations would be able to use it to do better.

[thereisonlyoneparty]

02:52 PM on 10/02/2011

That would require a proof of a god to proof the existence of rights.

Saying that something is true because it is true does not provide evidence to its existence.  Rights only exist as a legal concept.   Remove the legal structure that defines them and they cease to exist.  An easy example is ten minutes after zombie apocalypse.  At that time rights no longer exist.  There is no government nor any other system capable of enforcing one's rights and all social agreements would likely have ceased to exist as well.

[Audacityscape]

10:31 PM on 10/03/2011

Why would god EVER want us to carry guns and use them against one another? Thou shalt not kill, remember? If you think guns, however they're used, have any place in God's plan, I suggest you reread the bible.

[ninthraphael]

03:57 PM on 10/01/2011

the right is governing on the church's pulpit!! give every man a uterus and see what will happen! when are these people gonna pass a law on jobs?

[SteveDenver]

01:44 AM on 10/02/2011

If men could get pregnant, abortions would be free at Starbucks and 7-11.

[Nopinky]

12:06 PM on 10/02/2011

F&F

[CarlyQ]

11:54 PM on 10/02/2011

Damn, I keep wanting to fan your posts...but I'm already a fan.

Have a badge instead.

[Trojan Mouse]

09:56 AM on 10/02/2011

Who's job is that?