On November 8, Mississippi voters will be faced with the following yes-or-no question regarding their state constitution: "Should the term 'person' be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof?"
If a majority votes "no" on the measure, known as Initiative 26 or the personhood amendment, reproductive rights in the nation's most conservative state would essentially remain unchanged. Mississippi's one abortion clinic would continue operating, women would continue having access to a suite of contraceptive measures, the state's three doctors who do in vitro fertilization (IVF) would continue following standards generally accepted in medical circles, and unborn fetuses would continue having fewer legal rights than fully formed humans.
On the other hand, if a majority votes "yes," as it seems poised to do, Mississippians' reproductive rights would drastically change. It may also fuel personhood movements in several other states, including Michigan, Florida, and Ohio.
The most publicized difference is with abortion, which would be considered murder and effectively banned -- without exceptions for rape, incest, or when the woman's health is compromised but not at immediate risk of death. OB-GYN doctor and "Yes on 26" advisory board member Freda Bush said in a press conference, "Women who have borne a child conceived in rape testify that the baby is a blessing, rather than have an abortion, which essentially continues the assault. Adoption is always a loving option."
Limiting abortions is a popular idea in Mississippi, which has a thriving anti-abortion movement and a prominent Christian majority. Perhaps as a result, much of YesOn26's advocacy appears designed to appeal to this audience. One YesOn26 commercial reminds Mississippians, in a manner similar to many pro-life campaigns, "No matter how small, every human life has infinite value." Another shows the audience a 24-week-old fetus named "Lyza Kate Freeman." Local newscasters have also highlighted the abortion element of the amendment, telling viewers, "[Initiative 26] would make abortions illegal, which is what's at the heart of this debate."
These segments do not, however, tell the full story. The implications of personhood -- that is, of granting a fertilized egg legal rights -- go far beyond limiting abortion. Regardless of one's stance on abortion, personhood is an extreme measure that pushes against many commonly accepted reproductive and human rights.
With full legal rights, destroyed eggs are essentially treated as murder victims. This is why abortion is illegal under personhood. This is also why personhood would outlaw all contraceptives that interfere with the implantation of fertilized eggs -- including intrauterine devices (IUDs), some forms of the birth control pill, and the "morning-after pill," which YesOn26 proponents call "human pesticide." Personhood would also prohibit scientists from destroying embryos they create in laboratories, a process often necessary during in vitro fertilization and in types of scientific research.
Personhood would also change how doctors treat women undergoing difficult pregnancies. On its website, YesOn26 advocates write, "Under personhood, a doctor would be required to save both lives if possible; but in the hard cases where the baby is unviable, the doctor would save the life of the mother." However, doctors often have to make judgment calls on when either life is in danger, and when they should begin prioritizing the mother over the unborn baby. This is particularly true in ectopic pregnancies, a complication in which the fertilized egg implants outside the womb. Under personhood, some doctors may become wary of prioritizing the mother's health, fearing legal ramifications if they "murder" the unborn fetus in the process.
Perhaps most worryingly, personhood may begin to criminally implicate some women for having stillbirths and miscarriages. Though YesOn26 insists personhood will not prosecute women for having miscarriages, this trend has already begun in some states, including Mississippi. Rennie Gibbs, who had a stillbirth in 2006 when she was 15, was charged with "depraved-heart murder" after prosecutors discovered she had a cocaine habit. The charge carries a mandatory life sentence.
In an extreme case, personhood could be even used to justify legal measures that most would otherwise consider preposterous. For instance, according to a recent New York Times editorial, a zygote under personhood may "be eligible to inherit money or be counted when drawing voting districts by population." Given how many laws use the terms "person" and "people," the editorial argued, the implications of personhood could be endless.
Within Mississippi, some groups have been trying to distinguish between the pro-life movement and Initiative 26. A grassroots organization called Parents Against MS 26, which claims to take no position on elective abortion, has been spreading its belief that "there are many valid reasons for pro-life AND pro-choice Mississippians to vote No on 26." In addition to providing FAQs on ectopic pregnancies and IVF, the site offers several personal stories and guest bloggers. For instance, Reverend Todd Owen Watson wrote, "It would be nice if the changing of one or two words in a state constitution would solve all of our concerns about life, its sanctity, and its meaning, but this ill-written and ill-advised amendment might destroy more life than it saves because of its... heavy-handed impact across all aspects of our daily existence."
Freda Bush hopes the personhood amendment will restore a "culture of life" in the United States. "It's unfortunate," she said, "that for the last forty years, the pre-born person has been marginalized and made legally irrelevant." Sadly, by granting equivalent legal rights to fertilized eggs, the personhood amendment may tip the scales and begin prioritizing the zygote over the post-born person. Personhood is not a simply change in nomenclature; its consequences are perverse, many of them reaching well beyond abortion.
Follow Sarika Bansal on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sarika008
Lisa Sharon Harper and David Innes: Christian Views on Social Issues: Abortion
Anu Kumar: Do U.S. Abortion Restrictions Violate Human Rights?
Clay Farris Naff: Personhood Amendment? Kid's Stuff! We Need a Motherhood Amendment!
Abortion in Mississippi: Personhood and Zygotes' Rights - TIME
Daily Kos: Personhood in Georgia, or, the Zygote Census
Mississippi's Choice: Personhood and the Rights of Zygotes - Yahoo ...
I would also spread it around to anyone who makes the argument against abortion or who supported this initiative. Because it lays bare the facts that those who oppose abortion have no place pushing against it on people when there are children suffering NOW. Your job isn't finished just because a baby is born. If your not able or willing to care for it like it should be, then what was the point of such an amendment?
This doesn't sound like the promotion of the "culture of life," but simply the promotion of the "culture of birth." Life is not merely the absence of death, but also "the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual." To be pro-life, one must be concerned with the existence that extends past birth, i.e.: healthcare, education, employment to feed and care for the life. Focusing on the lives currently on this planet in my eyes is truly pro-life.
I am sorry but this abortion argument is utterly ridiculous. Do you know how many animals abort fetuses every day?...and yes, we are animals too. I don't care if they are medical or natural...without religion in the picture it would not matter whatsoever. Not to mention, to the conservative religious right, life starts at conception and ends when the baby comes out of the womb...from that point forward they could care less.
No one should have the right to control what goes on within a woman's body...it is her body.
But then who speaks for the unborn child?...well that would be your god...but he appears to be quite busy ignoring his "chosen"...when are we going to wake up and stop being held down by superstition?
1) Cheering executions
2) Cheering and clapping to let people in a coma die because they have no insurance
3) Cutting funding for aid for poor and starving children
4) Engaging in multiple, open-ended wars in the middle east.
Only by following these policies can we establish a "culture of life."
Sincerely,
John Q. Republican
P.S. If you're not rich, blame yourself! lol
this is the law:
ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
no human has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not force to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is protected by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
consensual sex =/= a legal, binding contract for an unwanted fetus to live.
ALL THE REPUBLICANS ARE PRO-LIFE, SCHIZOPHRENIC FASCISTS WHOSE SUPPORTS REPRODUCTIVE SLAVERY OF AMERICAN FEMALE CITIZENS, WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE 13TH AMENDMENT.
It's always best to be conservative (no pun intended) in stereotyping, especially when it comes to politics, because there is a HUGE spectrum to look at, and not everyone is so conveniently pigeon-holed into one category.
Biological life may begin at fertilization, but for upwards of 40 weeks, that biological life is completely dependent on the mother for oxygen, nutrition, hydration - everything that makes survival possible. Where the rights conflict, how do you separate the two without violating the rights of one?
Say a woman finds out, a couple weeks after she's conceived, that she has an aggressive cancer and chemo is her best chance for survival - but chemo will inevitably injure or kill the fetus. Does the woman than have to take her own fetus -- a part of her own body -- to court? Who hires a lawyer for the fetus? Who represents its interests? Does it become a ward of the State in utero? Which life counts more: one already being lived, or one that could be lived?
If "personhood" is to be described so specifically, doesn't it also specifically disqualify corporations for inclusion as "persons"?
Wouldn't this allow a successful argument against Citizens United and related perversions?
Go ahead, Mississippi, open up that big ol' can o' crawfish.
Would a fetus be able to profit from a mother's death in a life insurance settlement?
OR - under this amendment, could you take out a cr@pload of life insurance on a fertilized egg and then collect in the case of a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth?
I love the insurance question. Wonder how the insurance companies will react to that one.
Have y'all heard of the movement called THE PILL KILLS? Absolutely absurd. Because in their misogynistic brain, if they take away our reproductive rights, they send us right back to the good old days, when women just sat and looked pretty and men followed their dreams. It enrages me.
I have an IUD and I love it. Best form of birth control I've ever used. I am married, quite happily but I feel good knowing I am in control of my fertility. These anti-choicers only see women as incubators. They don't see us as human beings.
During the IVF process, many embryos are created, and many die in the lab. Most clinics will only transfer a limited number of embryos per attempt so we don't end up with more Octomoms (because that's REALLY dangerous for the mother and the babies). Extra embryos are frozen and some don't survive the thawing process when they are thawed to be transferred for another pregnancy attempt.
How is this law going to affect everyone working in an IVF clinic? Are they going to be tried for murder for the expected number of embryo losses every day?
I just had 2 embryos transferred. I'm pregnant but I currently don't know if I'm pregnant with one baby or if both embryos survived and I've got twins a cookin. If it's a singleton, do I go to jail for murdering the embryo that didn't implant? My last pregnancy was identical twins. Were they 2 halves of a single person since they were created from a single embryo?
Ok, first attempt, a total of 12 eggs were fertilized. 7 embryos were discarded during the maturing process due to lack of growth, so there's 7 murders. We transferred 2, 1 of which was lost (murder #8), one split creating 2 halves of the same person, but they had to be aborted at 19 weeks due to a deadly infection (is that murder #9 or 9 and 10?) Transferred 2 more embryos which did not take, death toll now up to 12.
New IVF attempt, 10 fertilized eggs, 5 of which were discarded. That brings my murdering streak up to 17. We transferred 2 embryos and at least one of them seems be sticking (YAY) but we don't know if both did so I'll get back to you.
And government won't help me access the treatment to get pregnant, this is all out of pocket expense, but they want to send me to death row because I haven't succeeded in bringing a baby home.
Viagra is covered by just about every health insurance, but they are trying to outlaw certain birth control products.
So glad I live near the Canadian border. I'm seriously considering anchoring this baby there, just in case.
indecent exposure to a minor?
child molestation?