Far more than abortion is at stake: There are measures that establish legal principles that will be and, indeed, already have been used to justify arrests of and forced medical interventions on pregnant women.
Most people identify Roe v. Wade with a single landmark judgment. Lost in these debates is Roe's altogether distinct holding that the state's interest in "potential life" constitutes a valid reason to regulate reproductive conduct.
While most doctors perceive personhood legislation as a threat to abortion rights -- which it is -- the potential legislation also impacts the treatment of complicated pregnancies and limits infertility procedures. And that's why fertility experts are worried.
If we had elected a "Personhood President," there would be cause for great concern. As we head into the next four years, expect this contingent to continue to attempt to make personhood, not Roe v Wade, the law of the land.
Thank goodness Mississippi voters -- as have voters in every other state where this issue has appeared on the ballot -- put the rights of women above the "rights" of fertilized eggs. But how soon until a state does restrict birth control?
I write this missive in the year 2014 from my small, poorly ventilated office in the Shandong Province of China where my job and millions of others have been outsourced by President Mitt Romney and his Republican allies in Congress.
The American people deserve to know what they might actually expect with respect to reproductive health services in a Romney-Ryan presidency. And we also deserve moderators willing to ask the right questions.
The battle to reverse Roe v. Wade is essentially the same war being waged against undocumented worker, only on the reproductive front. It is a thinly veiled effort at subjugating what is viewed as a threat to job security.
It seems the Republican obsession with being pro-life lasts about nine months. After that, it's each baby for herself. So Democrats, let's be clear and strong: Being pro-birth is not automatically the same thing as being pro-life.
If Proposed Initiative 46 passes, men who rape women in Colorado will be secure in the knowledge that their efforts to humiliate and degrade those women will be backed up and reinforced by state action forcing those women to go to term -- whether they want to or not.
Protecting sperm rights would benefit society, and wouldn't really harm men. Understand -- a man's right to control his own body and life choices would not be infringed. Men could still have sex. They would merely be asked to accept a few tiny, ever-so-reasonable restrictions.
"America's Comeback Team" of Romney/Ryan will come back for women's choice, women's health and women's pay, and they will not stop until all of the progress made in the fight for women's equality over the past 50 years has been erased.
We can no longer pretend that Mitt Romney will focus on money and nothing else. As an occasional Republican myself, I wish that were true. It's not. Romney's appointment of Ryan as his running mate confirms the anti-choice agenda in big, bold, bright red colors.
For reasons that social scientists have yet to definitively unpuzzle, atheism and agnosticism are overwhelmingly staffed by men. My guess is that women see secularism more as having to do with atheism than with gender-based church-state issues.
They don't wear funny hats any more, but there still sure are a lot of Puritans in this country these days. It wouldn't surprise me if you told me some red state is going to force every woman who gets birth control to wear a scarlet letter.