Only a few months ago strategists were urging their candidates in Mississippi to stay clear of the "Personhood" initiative they'd be sharing space with on the ballot. More than a few candidates, believing it was the only safe path, chose to take a public position in support of the measure defining human life as existing at the moment of conception (or cloning, or a twinkle in an eye). Disease, rape, incest not counting as exceptions. Nothing would. Felonies for everyone.
Mississippi has a massively conservative voting base and heavily entrenched conservative politicians and institutions. Polling showed white and black voters overwhelmingly favored the initiative.
In January, I sat in the lobby of a Washington, DC hotel with a group looking for ideas on how to defeat Personhood. My advice, partly, based on my experiences with races in the South, polling data and my personal knowledge as a native Mississippian was to assume its passage, run a singularly grassroots operation and craft a campaign that would look beyond Election Day. Fortunately, I did suggest a flexible campaign with data collection and growth capacity in case the unexpected happened and defeating the measure came into play.
The unexpected happened. Mississippians defeated "Personhood" driving a stake in the heart of a movement that was planning on sweeping, state by state, through the nation.
Why did they lose in arguably the most conservative state in the Union? Why did the anti-Personhood forces win a majority of the vote in Mississippi? Here are six reasons Personhood failed in Mississippi:
6.) The Personhood Initiative language was poorly crafted and made for bad policy. Doctors, for instance, became concerned about the legality of carrying out their oath to save lives. Medical groups organized. This created a foundation for thoughtful people to begin speaking out. Policy generally doesn't win elections but it does create the intellectual depth political passion and message need to prevail.
5.) Clergy stood up and said no. The Episcopal and Methodist Bishops for Mississippi publicly opposed the measure. The Catholic Bishop would not support it instead offering a critical critique. This empowered other ministers to begin speaking out. By the numbers, nothing trumps Southern Baptists in Mississippi, and their leaders remained lividly in support of Personhood. But, Methodists are the second largest denomination in the state, the Episcopal bishop and his family are legendary profiles in courage for Mississippians and the Catholic bishop's pro-life credentials brought attention to his refusal to support the measure. The clergy who spoke out provided a moral framework for the bad policy argument and an even larger moral foundation for voters.
4.) Haley Barbour, the Guv himself, publicly raised concerns about the implications of the measure; right before saying would vote for it. But, he chose to share his concerns. Why? I have no idea. He's an excellent political strategist. Like President Clinton, he's his best strategist. I find it hard to believe he didn't speak out knowing he would have an impact against the measure. He did. Haley "green lighted" many to do what they wanted to do. Vote no.
3.) The Mississippi NAACP announced their opposition to the measure. Derrick Johnson is the president. He is about as courageous and shrewd as they come. He took a stand. And, you know what? The large percentage of black Mississippians supporting Personhood began to crumble. It was leadership in action. And, it changed the outcome. A voting majority began forming of African Americans, white Democrats and upper middle class, educated white conservatives.
2.) "Mississippians for Healthy Families" organized; then they organized the state around defeating personhood. It was this group that brought together the policy concerns, messaging and grassroots organizing that synergized the opposition. Prior to the existence of "Mississippians for Healthy Families" there were only voices in the wilderness throughout the state in search of a movement. This gave them a movement. They connected these voices and brought depth, know-how and resources. Basically, they turned the opposition into a campaign; a winning campaign. Perhaps, "Mississippians for Healthy Families" has a second legacy in creating the largest and most powerful progressive database and organization in Mississippi.
1.) The forces who brought Personhood before the public insulted the intellectual and cultural sensibilities of thousands of Mississippians. They assumed Mississippi would be a cake walk. They provided grandma's 1970's abortion language that didn't speak to many younger, yet conservative, Mississippians. They were sloppy in their organizing and flippant about their opposition; condescending. Their official Personhood website looks like my child's 4th grade class designed it.
I talked to many Mississippians leading up to Election Day; acquaintance after acquaintance, folks I grew up with and know as devout social conservatives. And, to the last one they were voting NO on Personhood. They were turned off by those leading the Personhood campaign. They were insulted by the assumptions of how they thought and that they were supposed to follow the leader without question. They didn't.
There's a lesson here about showing up in Mississippi without your game face on. As the Ford Expedition set grows in the 'burbs with their venti bolds in the cup holders so does the sophistication. Don't bet the farm unless you've invested in the crops. Otherwise, you will lose. Ask the people of Personhood.
Follow Burns Strider on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BStrider
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
Don C. Reed: VICTORY! Mississippi Trashes Personhood Nonsense
Mississippi's "Personhood Amendment" fails at polls
Mississippi Personhood Amendment
Ohio repeals law restricting unions; Miss. blocks 'personhood' amendment
Debating Mississippi's "Personhood Amendment"
Planned Parenthood Statement on Defeat of Personhood Amendment in Mississippi
Proposed Mississippi 'personhood' amendment doesn't go far enough
Since 1973, 47,000,000-US-American people are not here.
So like China, we have a serious problem of imbalance in taxes collected vs debts to pay.
Rape and incest only comprise 1% of abortions....
Ahhh you forgot them, didn't you?
They are the planned, chosen, children that were had INSTEAD OF the aborted ones. Several children in my close family owe their lives to abortion. Their mother's aborted as teens to complete their educations and met their current husbands in college. No abortions, no attending college at the same time as the future husbands, and Poof! My niece, nephew, and god-daughter cease to exist.
For all you know, you yourself wouldn't be here if you mother had kept a previous pregnancy instead of aborting it and living the life that eventually produced you.
You would trade these cherished, planned, wanted, loved, children for the aborted ones? You think society is better off, maybe, if fewer children have fathers in their lives? If fewer women compelte their education? You think poverty is good, yes?
I do not debate abortion publicly.
My opinion is as stated previously.
Thanks for your reply,
God Bless America!
These religious/conservative/zealots are basically saying that if you cannot afford the medical care to carry a baby to term and are not in a position to provide for an unlimited number of offspring, then you should not have sex.
Or in simpler terms - only the wealthy are allowed to have sex. The rest of the 99% can simply take cold showers.
Moral integrity has lifetime benefits.
And of course, last time I checked, 'moral' sex can cause an unwanted pregnancy just as easily as 'immoral' sex.
Do not believe that we have driven a stake into the heart of the Personhood movement. Already today, the next day after their resounding defeat at the polls, they are talking about how to try again. There is now a totally Republican leadership in the state legislature as well as a governor and lieutenant governor who vigorously promoted this Personhood Amendment on TV, in speeches, and by phone calls; they have to be embarrassed by their defeat and they will want to force the issue on the public again, probably through the legislature this time, and they will be supported in this by a minority of irrational fanatics who will never admit defeat.
Yes, we won a great battle, but this culture war is by no means over.
It always loses by a wider margin the second time.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/200118413398417/
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/03/colorado-voters-slam-personhood-measure/
------
For the second time, Colorado voters have rejected a controversial initiative
--
Dubbed the “personhood” initiative, the measure that sought constitutional rights for individuals “at the beginning of biological development” was rejected by a 3-1 margin
-----
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Alaska_Personhood_of_Unborn_Children_Act_%282012%29
----
The Alaska Personhood of Unborn Children Act, also known as the "Natural Right to Life," will not appear on the 2012 ballot in the state of Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute.
--
The initiative was rejected by both the state attorney general and lieutenant governor.
-----
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/04/28/state-5039/
-----
Organizers of the personhood amendment in California announced today that they failed to obtain enough signatures to qualify it for the 2010 ballot.
-----
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/08/state-4712/
-----
A Nevada state judge today stuck down the language for a personhood-abortion ballot measure
------
In Wisconsin, interestingly, it was aggressively fought by the Wisconsin Right To Life anti-choice group:
http://www.wrtl.org/pa/
They just got attention in MI cause there was a whisper of a chance their lunacy would pass there.
Since he does not support either of these things, there will not be a legitimate link to provide any such evidence.
It would put Romney in an impossible position. Either support the amendment and turn off moderate, swing voters, or oppose it and anger anti abortion fanatics.
The whole thing was ridiculous from start to finish, it should never been on a ballot in a civilised country, or any country in the first place.
Obama didn't vote for any such bill. Obama *did* vote *against* a law that would have given an aborted fetus the same legal protections as a child that's born alive, and could have required doctors to treat a fetus that showed any signs of life after the abortion procedure, regardless of whether there was any chance of survival.
And you conveniently ignore the fact that Illinois law ALREADY requires doctors to take steps to preserve the life of a fetus whenever there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
I love the South but the people scare me but not today. Nope, not today.