The Personhood Amendment

[Ridiculous]

If a person dies and the cause of death is not immediately apparent, there is an investigation. If another person is found to have done something to cause that death, they can be held criminally accountable. If a fertilized egg is a person, a miscarriage is a death of a person with no immediately apparent cause. Therefore, that miscarriage must be investigated. If the woman did something that may have contributed, she may be criminally accountable. See the problem? :-/

[Austin]

Many, many anti-choicers believe that oral contraceptives' and IUDs' main mechanism is the interruption of a fertilized egg from implantation. I know - I used to be on the side of the fence. I've heard the arguments many, many times. So if a fertilized egg is declared a "person", do you really think that making those forms of birth control unavailable is a huge leap?

[lexiloumarie]

Could also be abused by assholish bf/dh that make claims that their ex/current wife/gf is using birth control to kill his potential children. Or used as a threat.

[maybeizfundie]

If a person dies and the cause of death is not immediately apparent, there is an investigation. If another person is found to have done something to cause that death, they can be held criminally accountable. If a fertilized egg is a person, a miscarriage is a death of a person with no immediately apparent cause. Therefore, that miscarriage must be investigated. If the woman did something that may have contributed, she may be criminally accountable. See the problem? :-/

Maybe, but I think it is a stretch. Because miscarriage is known to happen in 20-25% of known pregnancies and probably quite a larger percentage if you include pre-diagnosed pregnancies, and because it is known to happen "with no apparent reason", it would be impossible to do that. Especially since no extra funding for enforcement is included in this. There would need to be an evident reason *to* investigate for anyone to bother.

That's why I was thinking this all comes down to interpretation though. And though I tend to fall on the other side of the political spectrum than most here, I can't say I trust politicians or courts to interpret stuff rationally all the time. So I do see the problem, even though I think this particular one is very unlikely to go that direction.

[kayray]

I was just trying to figure out what it actually said. Having a hard time seeing criminalization of miscarriage or all birth control stemming from it. (And frankly, the mainstream Evangelical wing of Christianity, even pro-lifers, are far, far too attached to contraception to support it's criminalization. As hated as Dobson is here, even he is not against contraception as a rule, for instance, and FOTF statement pages leave plenty of room for the use of hormonal contraception, though not RU-486).

I can understand why people are upset about it, based on the abortion issue alone. But having a hard time with the use of some of the claims as if they were concrete, written in parts of the amendment, if they are not. Probably what made my antennas go up most was the part about miscarriage, since that's something I've dealt with. Criminalization of miscarriage certainly would be nuts, but I'm not seeing it here, at all.

I am newly registered here, so don't hold it against me (:)), but this change in wording is indeed very concerning; as statutory interpretation is an integral part of what will be determined illegal or not. That is the base from where laws - as made in the courtroom - come from. Even the more liberal rules of statutory interpretation hardly allow one to stray from "conception = personhood" in that suggested amendment.

While it is very difficult to determine an exact date of conception, this means that even birth control that acts to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (as many hormonal methods do) is in danger of being questioned for its legality just in case there may have been conception.

It also will subject women to investigation for miscarriages, or having to undergo possibly rigorous steps before being allowed to abort an ectopic or other life-endangering pregnancy. Can you imagine being a woman who may or may not have had a miscarriage being subject to an investigation because someone provided a "tip" that you may have been pregnant - and now are not?

[Witsec1]

Women are already facing murder charges for "fetal homicide". It's not a stretch. http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/07/02/mi ... or-murder/

[Rosa]

I dont' see how it would NOT make IVF illegal, since you have to either freeze or discard unused fertilized eggs for that. We don't deepfreeze people indefinitely.

[lizzy]

It won't pass. If it does pass by some miracle, it will not stand up in court.

[Effie]

Women are already facing murder charges for "fetal homicide". It's not a stretch. http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/07/02/mi ... or-murder/

Wow... what the fuck is wrong with that country?!

[BravaAmica]

It won't pass. If it does pass by some miracle, it will not stand up in court.

Don't underestimate the crazy. Seriously. How many politicians and/or laws have passed where we have stood by, laughing, saying, "Oh that shit is too crazy to pass." And then it passes.

[browncoatslytherin]

Women are already facing murder charges for "fetal homicide". It's not a stretch. http://healthfreedoms.org/2011/07/02/mi ... or-murder/

that is just...awful. a miscarriage or stillbirth or death of a child after birth is very traumatizing for a woman! and now how much more traumatizing the experience is because of the way they are treated! whoever is filing charges and prosecuting needs their head examined.

[CanadianHippie]

I am newly registered here, so don't hold it against me (:)), but this change in wording is indeed very concerning; as statutory interpretation is an integral part of what will be determined illegal or not. That is the base from where laws - as made in the courtroom - come from. Even the more liberal rules of statutory interpretation hardly allow one to stray from "conception = personhood" in that suggested amendment.

While it is very difficult to determine an exact date of conception, this means that even birth control that acts to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting (as many hormonal methods do) is in danger of being questioned for its legality just in case there may have been conception.

It also will subject women to investigation for miscarriages, or having to undergo possibly rigorous steps before being allowed to abort an ectopic or other life-endangering pregnancy. Can you imagine being a woman who may or may not have had a miscarriage being subject to an investigation because someone provided a "tip" that you may have been pregnant - and now are not?

Sounds like you are spot on. Any form of BC that is considered an abortificant by the right people will be outlawed. Which almost guarantees the birth control pill will be illegal. People who push these types of laws, and pass them, have a very messed up idea of what an abortion actually is. And of course any fetal death in utero will be considered a potential abortion and investigated. The way a suicide is investigated as a homicide until proven otherwise. And the mother, who will likely be grieving the loss of her child will have to deal with people thinking she's a murderer.

[browncoatslytherin]

you know, this just gives me more reason to get dual-citizenship with canada [yes, i qualify for it]. that way, if this goes to shit, then it will be easier to move to canada.

[demgirl]

Maybe, but I think it is a stretch. Because miscarriage is known to happen in 20-25% of known pregnancies and probably quite a larger percentage if you include pre-diagnosed pregnancies, and because it is known to happen "with no apparent reason", it would be impossible to do that. Especially since no extra funding for enforcement is included in this. There would need to be an evident reason *to* investigate for anyone to bother.

That's why I was thinking this all comes down to interpretation though. And though I tend to fall on the other side of the political spectrum than most here, I can't say I trust politicians or courts to interpret stuff rationally all the time. So I do see the problem, even though I think this particular one is very unlikely to go that direction.

Okay, let's say someone who is very publicly pro-choice gets pregnant -- say in less than ideal circumstances. That person is very happy about the pregnancy, nonetheless... some people find out. Those people notice she's no longer pregnant. She says she miscarried. One of those people goes to the police. The police could then investigate whether that person "murdered" her fetus. It's fine to say they won't, but honestly, it will happen if these types of laws are upheld. Especially it will happen to women willing to speak publicly and vociferously about their belief that abortion should be legal. Even if the investigation can't prove anything, being investigated by police is a traumatic experience. It's a decent way to terrify women into being quiet about their beliefs, even if you only do it once or twice as a public example. I don't for one second think every miscarriage would be investigated, but I don't think the scenario I just outlined is particularly far fetched.

[pomology]

Note to self: never ever move to Mississippi.

Here's the funny (in a sick, ironic way, not in an amusing way) thing about their amendment. It grants personhood to fertilized eggs but strips personhood from real living adult women.

[doe]

This makes me think about Romania. I believe they outlawed birth control and abortion during someone's reign, and all those orphans are what's left from that. (I don't remember specifics, sorry.)

[Guest Anonymous]

Maybe, but I think it is a stretch. Because miscarriage is known to happen in 20-25% of known pregnancies and probably quite a larger percentage if you include pre-diagnosed pregnancies, and because it is known to happen "with no apparent reason", it would be impossible to do that. Especially since no extra funding for enforcement is included in this. There would need to be an evident reason *to* investigate for anyone to bother.

That's why I was thinking this all comes down to interpretation though. And though I tend to fall on the other side of the political spectrum than most here, I can't say I trust politicians or courts to interpret stuff rationally all the time. So I do see the problem, even though I think this particular one is very unlikely to go that direction.

You think it's a stretch, but in February Bobby Franklin tried to get a law passed in Georgia where a woman who had a miscarriage would have had to prove that she didn't cause it. If she couldn't prove it, the death penalty would not be out of the question. Have a miscarriage, get put to death. Sounds pro-life to me! The relevant text:

'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder. Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event.

© The act of prenatal murder is contrary to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state and to the state itself and is illegal in this state in all instances.

(d) Any person committing prenatal murder in this state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1.

What if you fall down the stairs and have a miscarriage? Well, you probably did it on purpose. What if you exercise while you're pregnant? What if you have a cup of coffee? What if you go five miles over the speed limit and get in a car wreck? Safest thing to do is just keep the women home, on the ground floor, maybe with a tracking collar on. This bullshit is insidious. It starts with one bill and then another and another, and it will not end up anywhere good.

Unluckily for Bobby Franklin, but luckily for women, he dropped dead shortly after he began to champion this batshit insanity.

[FemaleScientist]

This makes me sick. My heart goes out to those who live in Mississippi.

[NurseNell]

Surely this will never pass. :roll:

[mirele]

This makes me think about Romania. I believe they outlawed birth control and abortion during someone's reign, and all those orphans are what's left from that. (I don't remember specifics, sorry.)

The dictatorship of Nikolai Ceaucescu...it was pretty awful for everyone but especially for women. The government used to keep track of your fertility (granted, he was overthrown in late 1989, so the technology was not as advanced as now). You'd get questioned if you weren't regularly pregnant or if you miscarried. Abortions were illegal and highly secretive.

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_text ... nthood.htm

That gives some pretty amazing details about obsession with fertility by Ceaucescu.

[demgirl]

In Mississippi? It will almost surely pass. The question is -- do the federal courts toss it? They're popping up all of a sudden to test Justice Kennedy's continued resolve on the abortion issue and to see if he still means what he said he meant in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The scary part is that if Ginsberg retires or dies and we have a pro-life president, the balance quickly shifts. Justices Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts have all demonstrated that they would uphold laws like this -- they only need one more vote. Which is why, though I question my resolve daily, I will vote for Obama in '12. But I'm scared because, as the most liberal person I know IRL and committed lifelong Democrat, I've had serious doubts about my ability to vote for Obama, which I believe has to mean that others are feeling the same way. And I don't know if Ginsberg, whom I adore, can hang on for five more years or, God forbid, even nine more years.

The Romanians have had it rough over the last few decades. Their country under Ceaucescu is much like the fundies would like America to look like, complete with hordes of orphans and endemic poverty.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

This seems a pure example of a "really short, 'common sense!!!' so we didn't think through any of the details or the implications" law.

Because of that, it's completely open to interpretation, and likely if by some crazy luck it did pass, likely there would be legal challenges forever and even many of those who passed the law would come to regret it (in fact, hopefully legal minded people will continue to point out various crazy implications of the law such that no one is able to support it).

A good example of such implications was already raised upthread - IVF.

IVF necessarily results in frozen embryos, as practiced today. Right now plenty of pro-life people just sort of close their eyes and "la la la I'm not thinking about that" when the issue is raised, because while they can't stand abortion and cling to the idea of "fertilized egg is a person," they wouldn't dream of restricting any sort of fertility treatments (so much for "God being in charge"). People might have fuzzy good intentions that oh, someone will surely adopt all the "snowflake babies" but it's simply not realistic, and so we've got embryos languishing in freezers now for decades. But oh, we can't have stem cell research, and we can't throw them away, so... there they sit. Not technically aborted, but... going nowhere, and eventually to be thrown out most likely.

So if this law passes, what then? Restrict cycles to only try one fertilization at a time? Plenty of pro-life people would never stand for that, because the odds are just too low and IVF is crazy expensive as it is. Insist on implanting all embryos that take, every time? That just endangers the fetuses, possibly causing them to spontaneously abort - was that a purposeful act that led to a miscarriage, then? They may be born underweight and with problems - is that child abuse?

This is in addition to the potential for restrictions on women of childbearing age drinking alcohol, or similar - fundies might happily welcome those side-effects. But the point is, there's various implications of these silly "common sense!!! so it's nice and short, no legal mumbo jumbo!!!" laws that even the original supporters won't go for, you gotta find those and publicize it widely.

There was a similar issue with one of the anti-gay marriage proposed laws (in Virginia, I think?) that if followed out logically could end up making some regular business partnerships illegal. That sort of thing.

[jaelh]

gvc - i'd love to see how it might impact tax status.

surely a fetus is a dependent, in the truest sense of the word? :)

[sandee]

Surely this will never pass. :roll:

This is Mississippi- I will be shocked if it doesn't pass. A large number of democrats, including Johnny Dupree (the democratic candidate for governor) have come out in support of the amendment.

Frankly, I have heard very little in the news regarding potential threats to IVF and birth control access (I currently live in the Jackson area).

I find it rather disgusting that the current governor touts that "We are making Mississippi the safest place in the nation for an unborn child." on his website http://www.governorbarbour.com/issues/

While the state remains the WORST state in the nation (10 years running!) for the welfare of (postborn) children. http://www.starkvilledailynews.com/node/6965

[VeraAnne]

I actually think the miscarriage bit would be pretty simple. I'm in the middle of the miscarriage from hell right now (4 weeks and still not finished). I've been poked and violated more times this month than ever before in my life. They already do blood work at every visit and check for everything from HIV to Cocaine. All they'd have to do is put Methotrexate/Cytotec on the list of screened drugs.

Not commenting about the ethics of the law, just the feasibility of actually monitoring if a woman caused a miscarriage or not. Some places already test for these drugs because there are some crappy men out there who drug their gf's drinks with abortificients.