‘Personhood’ Amendment Represents New Tack in Abortion Fight

[emmiedahl]

I am not a one issue voter in general. I generally identify as moderate, although I am shifting leftward by the day. That said, any politician who passes a personhood law will automatically lose both my vote and that of my conservative husband. I am currently raising the results of several unplanned pregnancies, but this is crazy. I would be a suspected criminal several times over due to a history of miscarriages. I would be unable to abort a ball of cells that threatened my life. I just cannot support any politician that holds such extreme beliefs.

[GeoBQn]

My roomie takes it for her PCOS.

I took it for my three-day migraines. For a while, without BC, I was stuck at home with terrible cramps and migraines.

But I guess being stuck at home is what they want for women.

Stuck at home and miserable! My mom had a friend growing up who had bouts of vomiting every time she got her period, sometimes bad enough to miss school. A daughter of a family friend used to have such bad cramps that all she could do was sit in the bath and cry. How do they expect SAHDs and homemaking wives to take care of their families and homes while enduring such severe recurring symptoms? Oh, right. Their "cure" is marrying them off young and keeping them pregnant as often as possible. I take the pill for PCOS too, and I hate feeling like I'm an exception. "Oh, you can get the pill for $10/pack since you are using it as medical treatment, but not other women, because we don't consider it preventative medicine." Fuck off (*cough*CVS*cough*) and read the latest statement from the Department of Health and Human Services. Birth control and abortion are about maintaining a constant standard of health. For many women, that standard of health includes not being pregnant.

And the thing is, I bet the state officials who are supporting the personhood amendment never even considered the effects of banning the pill for women who use it to treat illnesses. When I was sitting in on state senate committee hearings about taking funding away from clinics who referred for abortions, it was ASTOUNDING how little the Republicans considered all the contingencies and consequences from the bill they were supporting. "Are you aware that X bill will cause Y to happen?" "Uh, no, but I guess that makes sense . . ." But nope, they are still going to support even though innocent people (i.e. practically all people) will suffer in some way.

[Effie]

Mississippi sure knows how to solve a problem!

They have the highest poverty rate in all of North America.

They have the highest rate of childhood obesity.

They have the 8th highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the country.

And their shining crown of glory – the highest rate of teen pregnancy births in the country.

http://reasonsimgoingtohell.com/2011/10 ... h-control/

[Stickers]

http://reasonsimgoingtohell.com/2011/10 ... h-control/

And as of 07 Mississippi also ha\d a very high infant death rate!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11158569

But they aren't trying to fix that, if anything this amendement will result in MORE infant death.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Caribou - while we have some fundie pockets up here esp in Alberta, the demographics really are different in the U.S. We don't have anything near the numbers of fundies in the Bible Belt, and the U.S. doesn't have anything like Quebec (the French, formerly super-Catholic province which used to produce tons of super-sized families which is now quasi-socialist with high rates of babies outside of marriage and low birth rates).

Successful Canadian politicians, more than everything else, want to get elected and avoid deeply polarizing issues that will split the vote. It took the Supreme Court to strike down the old abortion law and the unelected Senate to stop a new abortion bill - but since then, most politicians have concluded that reopening the issue would be political poison. Harper may be Christian and Conservative, but above all he wanted to be in power, and he knew that he couldn't win in either Quebec or Ontario if he would be a scary social conservative.

One of my favorite Daily Show lines pointed out that Canada was somewhat to the left of the U.S., so the American equivalent of the Conservative Party was "Gay Nader Fans for Peace". My old internet buddies, mostly Americans, were confused as hell when they found out that I voted Conservative, since they just saw me being pro-universal healthcare, pro-long parental leaves for both mothers and fathers, pro-gay marriage rights, pro-choice and anti-handgun. Harper's position is to the left of Obama's on all of these.

[kayray]

Caribou - while we have some fundie pockets up here esp in Alberta, the demographics really are different in the U.S. We don't have anything near the numbers of fundies in the Bible Belt, and the U.S. doesn't have anything like Quebec (the French, formerly super-Catholic province which used to produce tons of super-sized families which is now quasi-socialist with high rates of babies outside of marriage and low birth rates).

Successful Canadian politicians, more than everything else, want to get elected and avoid deeply polarizing issues that will split the vote. It took the Supreme Court to strike down the old abortion law and the unelected Senate to stop a new abortion bill - but since then, most politicians have concluded that reopening the issue would be political poison. Harper may be Christian and Conservative, but above all he wanted to be in power, and he knew that he couldn't win in either Quebec or Ontario if he would be a scary social conservative.

One of my favorite Daily Show lines pointed out that Canada was somewhat to the left of the U.S., so the American equivalent of the Conservative Party was "Gay Nader Fans for Peace". My old internet buddies, mostly Americans, were confused as hell when they found out that I voted Conservative, since they just saw me being pro-universal healthcare, pro-long parental leaves for both mothers and fathers, pro-gay marriage rights, pro-choice and anti-handgun. Harper's position is to the left of Obama's on all of these.

Though not left enough to not fast-track through legislation that will not only wipe out the long gun registry, but also roll it back even further to do away with much of the licensing requirements, and provisions that have been in place since 1977 - and really are very good ideas to have in place, etc. :( The total lack of discussion about how this may impact women in domestic violence situations, etc infuriates me to no end.

Or to bring in harsher criminal laws/sentencing minimums that even TEXAS has told us have not worked and only made things worse.

There is some irony into imposing higher mandatory sentences, yet totally lowering restrictions to own and acquire firearms.

Not to attack of course your right to vote for whomever you choose, I just personally despise Harper in particular and the "Alberta Politics" he plays (cabinet not talking to press after cabinet meetings, etc) and his rhetoric. His government was found in contempt of Parliament damn it - that is not something that one should be proud at being first at! I find him shifty, and I don't trust him NOT to try and make even more socially conservative moves that will affect universal healthcare, gay marriage, etc. Even if not by legislation, he has control by restricting of funding, etc. It is well known he takes a very right position on both, and has spoken at anti-gay marriage rallies in the past - and remember the whole kerfuffle with his Minister of Immigration? The Cabinet has tremendous power in the involvement of the appointment of a few upcoming Supreme Court seats that are being emptied soon, and that too is scary. The Progressive Conservatives were socially progressive and fiscally conservative, but the merging with the Reform moved them more to the right on the social side too.

P.S. I am in Alberta as well, but transplanted here from Manitoba :)

[ChickeyMonkey]

I also assume that this will kill IVF treatments.

Here's an irony: one of the ways that couples at high risk for nasty genetic diseases can avoid the trauma of having and amnio and late-term abortion is to do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis on the embryos, but that's not going to happen if those embryos in a tube get defined as "persons".

Can embryos vote, apply for government benefits or be counted in the census? Has anyone actually put any thought into this?

More importantly, will they allow you to drive in the HOV/carpool lanes without getting a ticket?

[dawn9476]

And as of 07 Mississippi also ha\d a very high infant death rate!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11158569

But they aren't trying to fix that, if anything this amendement will result in MORE infant death.

Their school system is also the worse in the country I believe.

All these things is why Hayley Barbour would never have the chance to be President even though a lot of hard core social conservatives would love to see him run.

[bea]

My husband practices estate and probate law - he's wondering how the hell they're going to handle this in Mississippi inheritance law. If a fetus is a person, they have inheritance rights. And tax duties. Ooooh, betcha the rightwingers didn't think about this aspect....

[2xx1xy1JD]

Kayjay:

I know one of the Supreme Court nominees (discussed family law just before the announcement was made), and it's a good, solid choice.

I will admit that dh and I had a conversation after Layton's death where we said, "good thing we like Harper, because it's sort of scary that there is no opposition party with a leader left." I'm not a huge law-and-order type, but did think that some of the earlier changes were sorely needed. Specifically, raising the age of consent from 14 to 16. Under the old law, there was nothing that we (parents, courts and child protection agencies) could do to stop a 14 yr old from living with, and being exploited by, someone far older who could even be pimping them.

I had a feeling from your other post that you were Manitoba to Alberta.

bea:

No, of course nobody has thought this stuff through.

[O Latin]

My husband practices estate and probate law - he's wondering how the hell they're going to handle this in Mississippi inheritance law. If a fetus is a person, they have inheritance rights. And tax duties. Ooooh, betcha the rightwingers didn't think about this aspect....

I promise I'm not trying to make light of all the ridiculous possible implications of this amendment, and I really don't know much about law, but wouldn't it probably work much the same way as if an underage child inherited (presumably their parent's) money? It would go into a trust fund or whatever until the child turned 18. I'm sure there are more complications that I haven't even thought of, but people have been known to leave their entire estates to their dogs, so a fetus inheriting doesn't seem like the most far-fetched thing out there, personhood amendment or not.

[ChickeyMonkey]

I promise I'm not trying to make light of all the ridiculous possible implications of this amendment, and I really don't know much about law, but wouldn't it probably work much the same way as if an underage child inherited (presumably their parent's) money? It would go into a trust fund or whatever until the child turned 18. I'm sure there are more complications that I haven't even thought of, but people have been known to leave their entire estates to their dogs, so a fetus inheriting doesn't seem like the most far-fetched thing out there, personhood amendment or not.

But what happens if the fetus dies in utero? An acquaintance just lost a pregnancy at ~20 weeks. There was no heartbeat found at a routine prenatal appointment. What would happen to a trust that was set up for her future daughter (it was a much desired girl after 3 boys) if that fetus didn't survive to delivery? Or a severely disabled baby dies minutes or hours after birth (anecephaly, for instance).

As usual, the nuts who are in office haven't thought these things through past the "but it's a baaaybeee!!" sentiment.

[O Latin]

But what happens if the fetus dies in utero? An acquaintance just lost a pregnancy at ~20 weeks. There was no heartbeat found at a routine prenatal appointment. What would happen to a trust that was set up for her future daughter (it was a much desired girl after 3 boys) if that fetus didn't survive to delivery? Or a severely disabled baby dies minutes or hours after birth (anecephaly, for instance).

As usual, the nuts who are in office haven't thought these things through past the "but it's a baaaybeee!!" sentiment.

What would happen if the hypothetical inheriting child died in a car accident at age 10? I honestly don't know the answer to that. From what I understand, laws about who can inherit what, when, and and from whom are already pretty complicated. I promise I'm not trying to be annoying. It's just that of all the possible implications of this amendment, this one freaks me out the least.

[desertvixen]

I promise I'm not trying to be annoying. It's just that of all the possible implications of this amendment, this one freaks me out the least.

You're right, O Latin, there are way more freak-worthy provisions of the bill.

However, that's one that some who support it might actually care about.

[bea]

Oh, I know, no one but estate and probate attorneys care about stuff like this, but it's an IMMENSELY complicated form of tax law and they're weird to begin with.

[Rosa]

Plus it seems like this would add one of the complications that comes with gay marriages not being recognized for federal tax purposes - you'd have a "person" who isn't recognized at the federal level, which might make every family with a pregnant woman in it do their taxes twice, once for the state and once for the feds.

[Maul the Koala]

Not to attack of course your right to vote for whomever you choose, I just personally despise Harper in particular and the "Alberta Politics" he plays (cabinet not talking to press after cabinet meetings, etc) and his rhetoric. His government was found in contempt of Parliament damn it - that is not something that one should be proud at being first at! I find him shifty, and I don't trust him NOT to try and make even more socially conservative moves that will affect universal healthcare, gay marriage, etc. Even if not by legislation, he has control by restricting of funding, etc. It is well known he takes a very right position on both, and has spoken at anti-gay marriage rallies in the past - and remember the whole kerfuffle with his Minister of Immigration? The Cabinet has tremendous power in the involvement of the appointment of a few upcoming Supreme Court seats that are being emptied soon, and that too is scary. The Progressive Conservatives were socially progressive and fiscally conservative, but the merging with the Reform moved them more to the right on the social side too.

P.S. I am in Alberta as well, but transplanted here from Manitoba :)

Hah... Gotta love Harper. The Canadian diplomats were discussing his wife's latest extra-marital affair at the time last time I was living abroad.

I think his handlers are wise enough to let things be with any sort of gay marriage or abortion legislation. At the end of the day it's his first priority to get re-elected and do what he needs to do to get re-elected. Hence why Alberta keeps on getting screwed for federal funding. ;) Damn all our federal project money going to Quebec! Anyway. I can't see him toying with any abortion/gay marriage legislation. It'll be used as a dangling carrot for those who think it'll happen but they'll go other places where they'll guarantee support (like the gun registry, "stiffer sentences", etc.).

Regardless, I'm always confused why people are anti-birth control and anti-abortion. I feel like the 1966 Decree and the aftermath in Romania should be required reading every time one of these laws is brought up or even thought about being passed. No getting up to the part where Ceauşescu banned abortion and birth control and saying it's too boring to read. No, you read the entire way through. And if that's not enough, we're taking you for a little trip to Romania where you get to see the orphanages and speak to orphans/women affected by the decrees. No sightseeing for you! There will also be an exam to test you on everything you've read. If you fail you get to resign, no nice political salary for you!

[sandee]

Another facet of the bill that I find distressing is the potential to take pregnancy/delivery decisions completely out of mothers' hands for the "best interests" of the fetus.

As the video link notes, there are already various documented cases of states forcing bedrest and c-sections on women in the "interest" of the child.

As a mother who went against doctors' advice with both pregnancies (the doctor insisted I was further along than I was with my 1st than I was- wanted to induce at 34wks b/c they insisted dd was 38wks; opted against routine c-section with twins), I can say I already felt pretty bullied to go along with their advice.

The thought of a court superceding my right to make the choices that I deem in not only my best interests, but also in the best interests of my child; or criminal prosecution for failing to follow doctors' orders is appalling.

[ChickeyMonkey]

What would happen if the hypothetical inheriting child died in a car accident at age 10? I honestly don't know the answer to that. From what I understand, laws about who can inherit what, when, and and from whom are already pretty complicated. I promise I'm not trying to be annoying. It's just that of all the possible implications of this amendment, this one freaks me out the least.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as attacking you. I was really ranting at the idiots who think up these stupid laws to limit our rights in any way they can. They *really* don't think these things through, do they.

I agree that inheritance law and all that is really confusing. I could never be a lawyer. I'd get confused and drown in the sea of words in the contracts I'd have to read/draw up.

[Lainey]

Hah... Gotta love Harper. The Canadian diplomats were discussing his wife's latest extra-marital affair at the time last time I was living abroad.

Please send more information on Canadian political gossip. We never get to hear anything juicy. What's this about his wife?

[Paisy]

Has this amendment actually passed in any state yet, and what is the likelihood it will actually pass in Mississippi? I know there are plenty who say it has a good chance of passing in Mississippi but I have to wonder if the truth is this is a sensational idea and Mississippi just happens to have a higher population of ignorant voters than the remaining states who have attempted to pass similar amendments and failed miserably. Maybe it will get 30% of the vote instead of 20%. It's making headlines because it's so ludicrous but any state who actually passes this is opening themselves up to a ridiculously heinous can of legal worms.

[Austin]

Ken Blackwell was on Hardball last night, as he's a proponent of this bill of course. For those of you outside of Ohio, Ken Blackwell is the asswipe former secretary of state who screwed up the 2004 election so badly (he handed the election to GWB) by denying thousands of people who waited in line for hours and hours the opportunity to vote (that's another whole story). Anyhoo, it was embarrassing b/c, among many things, he couldn't even pronouce "in-vitro fertilization". He continually said, "In-verto". I counted three times at least. WTF right there!? You're trying to take someone's rights away and you can't even pronouce it?

I was hoping Chris Matthews would call him on it, becaues I'm petty like that, but of course he didn't. Blackwell refused to admit that the amendment would have any implications for women on anything, but it was just about recognizing that a fertilized egg is a human being. :roll: Matthews didn't let him get away with that, of course, but the guy has never had any trouble lying his ass off before, and didn't last night either.

[emmiedahl]

Plus it seems like this would add one of the complications that comes with gay marriages not being recognized for federal tax purposes - you'd have a "person" who isn't recognized at the federal level, which might make every family with a pregnant woman in it do their taxes twice, once for the state and once for the feds.

You already have to do that.

[Paisy]

Ken Blackwell was on Hardball last night, as he's a proponent of this bill of course. For those of you outside of Ohio, Ken Blackwell is the asswipe former secretary of state who screwed up the 2004 election so badly (he handed the election to GWB) by denying thousands of people who waited in line for hours and hours the opportunity to vote (that's another whole story). Anyhoo, it was embarrassing b/c, among many things, he couldn't even pronouce "in-vitro fertilization". He continually said, "In-verto". I counted three times at least. WTF right there!? You're trying to take someone's rights away and you can't even pronouce it?

I was hoping Chris Matthews would call him on it, becaues I'm petty like that, but of course he didn't. Blackwell refused to admit that the amendment would have any implications for women on anything, but it was just about recognizing that a fertilized egg is a human being. :roll: Matthews didn't let him get away with that, of course, but the guy has never had any trouble lying his ass off before, and didn't last night either.

I wish I had seen that. I'll have to see if there's an online resource for it.

ETA Nevermind, found it! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#45068402

[Austin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#45068402

Just search for "Abortion in Mississippi". There's a woman in a purple blouse representing it so I didn't pick it out right at first.