Mississippi Voters Show Restraint, Reject “Personhood” Amendment
Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune
According to the Washington Post, ballot initiative Amendment 26 in Mississippi that would have granted “personhood” to a fertilized egg has failed.
With more than half of precincts reporting, the voters were rejecting the proposal to amend the Constitution by 59 percent to 41 percent. The text of the amendment:
The term “person” or “persons” shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”
In October, Ken Blackwell, Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council told MSNBC:
Technology, as well as public opinion, has made it crystal clear that what we have at the moment of conception is a small human being… It is not a glob of tissue … it is a human being. What we are pushing for across the country — in Ohio, in Mississippi — is legislation that recognizes the human nature of that fertilized egg.
The Mississippi Baptist Convention endorsed the amendment. Over the weekend, Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, compared the amendment and the movement it represents to abolishing slavery.
If we’re going to be a civilized society, we need to extend to unborn children, from the moment of conception forward, the protections of life just as we once had to extend the protections of the law to those that were held in bondage… I think Mississippi will go down in history as striking a tremendous blow for the pro-life cause … I believe we’ve got to get to the place — knowing what we know now about unborn babies — that everything about that baby is determined at the moment of conception.
“Personhood” supporters failed with similar proposals in Colorado in 2008 and 2010. A similar proposal has been filed in Oregon for the 2012 ballot.
From the Personhood website:
- Personhood USA desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and by law.
- Personhood USA serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans.
- Personhood USA is a 501(c)(4) Christian ministry that welcomes those who believe in the God-given right to life.
This is how the IRS descibes a 501(c)(4) organization:
To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements)… Seeking legislation germane to the organization’s programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes… a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f).
More on the Personhood movement from Irin Carmon (@irincarmon) at Salon.
Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons
18 Responses to “Mississippi Voters Show Restraint, Reject “Personhood” Amendment”
Glad to see this absurd proposal crashing and burning in state after state. My guess is the “Personhood” folks were expecting Mississippi to be thier first success but the state proved to be less mired in superstition than expected. I expect Oregon will give these nuts yet another well earned rejection.
Bill Faulkner smiles, the NASCAR crowd not so much…
I can’t see how a fertilized egg could be a person, but if, “ACME Wire Rope & Machine”, is a person, according to the Supreme Court, I guess anything is possible.
However elective abortion is indeed intentionally preventing a growing human being from having a life. It is disturbing to me that some people can do this with as much compassion as snatching a germinated seed from the ground, and, tossing it onto a compost heap to rot.
The title is — mistaken. “Restraint” implies excess on the part of measure proponents, which is wrong. (Meanwhile, in the real world, the true extremism is found on the pro-abortion, and pro-liberal-judicial-activism side, with people who avoid the word “abortion”: Why?)
As to the comment Kathy Gill chose to show, astute readers will note that the Bush people (Dubya’s) tried to define citizenship as starting at conception, with corresponding rights.
Underhanded, perhaps, but certainly better than the lefty militants, or others who, say, want to cloud the issue by issuing “rights” to lower animals, or plant life, even.
I support the right to life. I also understand the disagreements on both sides. As a scientist, I can tell you that a human zygote is definitely human. One can argue (in some very specific cases) that the mother’s life or physical health must be preserved. However, most abortions are not in this category. Additionally, most abortions are not scared teenagers with unplanned pregnancies. Abortions are most often performed on women who ALREADY HAVE CHILDREN.
I would not support the Mississippi ballot question. The reason has less to do with whether or not a zygote is human (it is), and more to do with intrusion by government and other scientific specifics. For instance, if conception begins personhood, should the child be permitted to vote at age 17 (plus maybe 3 months)? The proposed law would have prevented abortion even if it was necessary to save the mother’s life!
I hate abortion. I would much rather see those women who opt for the procedure to bring the child to term and put it up for adoption. However, I happen to believe that small steps will be necessary before we can stop the killing.
Its not “Pro Abortion” for a reason. No one thinks abortions are awesome, and we should all go out and get one. Its “Pro Choice” because a major life decision is being made and we don’t think the govt should interfere. This is a free country, if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. If your beliefs say it is murder, then by all means, live by that law. Its your CHOICE. But you don’t get to make that choice for me. Just like no one else gets to make your decision for you the other way and force an abortion upon you. This is not China. It horrible that you think you have the right to make such a decision for another person.
And what “left militants” are trying to give rights to plants and animals? Surely you are not thinking of PETA, and comparing their clout to that of the Bush administration?
Just when I think I’ve lost total and complete faith in the judgement of the American people, something like this happens.
Thanks, Mississippi. You’ve restored my faith, at least for the rest of the day.
Thanks for the responses. To Barky and JSpencer, I, too, had my faith in voters revived a bit. There were a lot of pollsters saying this was a slam dunk for personhood. I had envisioned years of court battles and a SCOTUS decision.
To those of you on either side of the abortion debate — (1) it’s legal (and has been for decades + it’s been a practice for as long as we’ve got records) and (2) as slafu says, IMO this is a decision best left in the hands of the mother, doctor and, when appropriate, father.
To sentry, I don’t know what you are referencing re Bush. A link?
Thank-you Kathy for your calm, concise and accurate comments. To those who continue choosing to believe that this is a matter of being pro-life or anti-life, pro-abortion or anti-abortion, I submit you still don’t have a clue. Sorry to say, both the persistence of ignorance and the deliberate use of misleading terminology (there can be great power in deception) are as old as the hills.
Hi, JSpencer — thank you! This is part of the “culture wars” however. I wonder why it’s OK to have “culture wars” that focus on abortion but not OK to point out that the upper 1% (actually, the upper 0.5%) have profitted mightily in the last 10+ years …. that pointing out that fact is somehow “class warfare.”
Me, I’d just as soon the word “war” only be reference when (a) Congress has declared such and (b) weapons and Armies (“the military”) are involved.
Why is it “nuts” to fight for the unborn?
I consider it “nutty” to require the government to enforce dogma on a free people. It goes against what I believe America should be about.
Because you are not god, Karen. If it is your belief that abortions should not be performed, persuade people of that. Don’t insist that the government, either state or federal, force others who don’t agree with you to live according to your beliefs. Especially while (As is true too often.) preaching the virtues of limited government.
The best I’ve ever heard it said, thanks Jim.
Actually, we have one set of laws, not different sets for different folks, and what the law should be is being contested by activists on both sides. (Currently the anti-abortion people are taking the initiative and the pro-abortion and -judicial-activism crowd is on the defensive.)
As far as using correct, honest language, I was clear and correct.
(Why the evasion?)
Jim, an NPR call-in show was covering this issue before the vote. A caller stated her opinion that this proposed law was just and proper and supported it. The moderator basically asked about how she reconciles this with having a limited government. The answer was a bunch of stutters followed by “I don’t know”.
Source of many “lulz” in our household.
“As far as using correct, honest language, I was clear and correct.” – sentry
Perhaps in your own mind you were. Or maybe you are being deliberately disingenuous. Nobody is “pro-abortion”, however, many people are “pro-choice”. If you don’t want one, don’t get one, but stay out of other peoples business, especially when it comes to pushing superstitious nonsense that would impose barbarism on other peoples bodies. This is the 21st century. I say that with full realization that human nature evolves slowly. Honesty is the key here.