Mississippi's 'Personhood' Law Could Outlaw Birth Control

[treemom]

I'm just south of Jackson

I wonder if that is it. The white fLighters from Memphis were opposed to it because they were worried about their mirenas and birth control pills. If the law had addressed that I think they would have voted for it in a heartbeat (I am in Memphis btw)

[doggie]

I am glad woman were saved from this aborted horror. I am so sick of Christians trying to force their beliefs on everyone They always go after woman first.

[FemaleScientist]

I don't live in Mississippi, but good job for fighting the good fight for those who live down there!

[Shoobydoo]

This thread was decently busy while I was off doing homework. I am SO glad that did not pass. What concerns me is how small the margin was....

[sandee]

This thread was decently busy while I was off doing homework. I am SO glad that did not pass. What concerns me is how small the margin was....

for one of the most conservative states in the nation, I think the margin was pretty good

the "YES" folks ran hard on the "evil planned parenthood and ACLU want you to kill babies" platform and a majority of politicians in the state supported the initiative

MY fear (and expectation) is that PersonhoodUSA folks will get this on the ballot again (just like it was on the ballot twice in Colorado)...the question will be whether or not the "personhood" folks will garner enough support the second time around

[Brainsample]

Mother Jones article post election about similar legislation that is still a matter of debate and potential vote.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/per ... -state-map

The group California Civil Rights Foundation is trying to get an amendment on the 2012 ballot defining a "person" as "all living human beings from beginning of biological development as human organism." In Florida, the anti-abortion advocates at American Life League and Personhood USA have launched a signature-gathering effort for a similar initiative that would grant rights starting at "the beginning of the biological development of that human being." The Montana ProLife Coalition is also gathering signatures for a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to define "person" to encompass "the stage of fertilization or conception."

The Nevada Pro-life Coalition, meanwhile, has taken a slightly different tack that would nevertheless achieve the same end, with an effort to outlaw "the intentional taking of a prenatal person's life" via an amendment to the state constitution. The measure would guarantee the "unalienable right to life" of "every human being at all stages of biological development before birth."

In Ohio, the state's attorney general rejected an effort to get a personhood measure on the ballot in 2011, because he felt the summary of the measure offered by anti-abortion activists was not "fair and truthful." The activists have already pledged to try again for 2012 election. Similarly, the Oregon Human Life Amendment Committee tried to get a measure on the ballot for 2010 that would guarantee protection for "all human beings…including their unborn offspring at every state of their biological development, including fertilization." The measure got tied up in litigation, but anti-abortion advocates are trying again for 2012.

[ohpotteryourotter]

I admit I'm pro-life (except in cases of rape, the mother is in danger, etc) but outlawing birth control is too far and unfair.

[Shoobydoo]

for one of the most conservative states in the nation, I think the margin was pretty good

the "YES" folks ran hard on the "evil planned parenthood and ACLU want you to kill babies" platform and a majority of politicians in the state supported the initiative

MY fear (and expectation) is that PersonhoodUSA folks will get this on the ballot again (just like it was on the ballot twice in Colorado)...the question will be whether or not the "personhood" folks will garner enough support the second time around

Well, I hope they'll at least find it much harder to get backers for their campaign since it's been voted down once.

[Witsec7]

I think there was some opposition money from lawyers groups. This law if, passed would have been an expensive legal morass much worse than 'Bama's immigration law. There would have been stays, and endless legal challenges that would have cost MS a bundle.

[Shoobydoo]

Not to mention all the extra assistance they'd have to start doling out once the accidental baby rate started skyrocketing.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Yeeargh! I am going to have to agree with Jericho, for very different reasons. I suspect strongly we have little in common but this one confuses me.

I am pro choice, Peter Singer level pro choice, which most here are not. And this is a hugely confusing difference of law. I do not see how you can have a crime of foetal homicide while having legal abortion. Being in favour of legal abortion, I don't get how the two can coexist in the same jurisdiction.

The woman had something taken from her that she badly wanted, and she was physically attacked. Isn't that theft and assault? If the crime "foetal homicide" runs alongside the legal right to an abortion, could that not be used against a woman?

I just googled Peter Singer, but it's 4 a.m. here and my brain hurts. Did I just read that he doesn't have moral issues with killing a newborn?

FWIW, I support the current Canadian legal position, which is basically that the state does not have jurisdiction over what a woman does with her body, since that would violating her security of the person. The state isn't making any moral judgment at all - it simply lacks any authority until the child is born. If an attack caused pregnancy loss, that would increase the assault charge, as opposed to being a separate charge. Easiest comparison would be that an assault causing the loss of a kidney would bring it up to "assault causing bodily harm", but someone is free to donate their own kidney voluntarily.

[treemom]

for one of the most conservative states in the nation, I think the margin was pretty good

the "YES" folks ran hard on the "evil planned parenthood and ACLU want you to kill babies" platform and a majority of politicians in the state supported the initiative

MY fear (and expectation) is that PersonhoodUSA folks will get this on the ballot again (just like it was on the ballot twice in Colorado)...the question will be whether or not the "personhood" folks will garner enough support the second time around

I agree. I thought the margin was actually better than expected.

[BravaAmica]

Not to mention all the extra assistance they'd have to start doling out once the accidental baby rate started skyrocketing.

I don't think they'll dole out any assistance for the pregnant women or their children. Because: "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're preschool, you're screwed"- George Carlin.

[jericho]

I'm taking it you are against abortion. Since you view life as sacred, do you also support all the government programs that will help the mother while pregnant and then the child as it grows up? I ask because almost all the people I know who view a fetus as a life, don't support those things.

I am against abortion. I believe God has a plan for every living person. I also believe abortion is used primarily as a method of convenience. I support any program (government or otherwise) that will genuinely and efficiently help troubled women who give birth. I do not support all government programs because some are not genuine and efficient. I also believe it is better for private organizations to help than government programs, and I personally choose to financially support a local private (non government) pregnancy center.

[formergothardite]

From my experience and just looking back at history, depending on private organizations to help single moms, married couples with children who are in financial difficulty or orphans has not gone well. Especially since most of the time it ends up with "We'll help you, but you need to listen to why we think you are a godless heathen living in sin first." And about the pregnancy center you support, what about after the baby is born and the mom needs to work or go to school, so they help with childcare? Do they help with food and heating all through childhood?

[antifundie]

So. Stupid. Do they not understand science???

They can pull my BC out of my cold, dead hands. Not to mention that many women (myself included) take the pill for other reasons besides preventing pregnancy, and that taking away the pill would cause health issues for many (even non-sexually active) women. Ugh.

[jericho]

From my experience and just looking back at history, depending on private organizations to help single moms, married couples with children who are in financial difficulty or orphans has not gone well. Especially since most of the time it ends up with "We'll help you, but you need to listen to why we think you are a godless heathen living in sin first." And about the pregnancy center you support, what about after the baby is born and the mom needs to work or go to school, so they help with childcare? Do they help with food and heating all through childhood?

The pregnancy center I support does present the message of Christ to women. They do not make any stipulations on providing services however. They do provide assistance such as diapers and clothes to the women and they also partner with area childcare centers which provide free service in some cases.

While these local pregnancy centers do not have the same budget and cannot provide as much service as some government plans, I do feel woman are better served by these private organizations. I wish there were more of them and they had more donations so that we could reduce the amount that government financial assistance needed.

[atheistjd]

I am against abortion. I believe God has a plan for every living person. I also believe abortion is used primarily as a method of convenience. I support any program (government or otherwise) that will genuinely and efficiently help troubled women who give birth. I do not support all government programs because some are not genuine and efficient. I also believe it is better for private organizations to help than government programs, and I personally choose to financially support a local private (non government) pregnancy center.

ORLY? So glad you believe that... You are incorrect, but I'm glad it makes you feel better about caring more for fetuses than for living, breathing women. I find that people who use this line have an interesting definition of convenience.

"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.

You either think all these promiscuous young welfare queens are walking around having abortions because it's a Tuesday and they'd rather get their nails done, which the data doesn't back up at all, or you think the above reasons are invalid. Granted, for rabid pro-lifers, "work," "education" and "caring for dependents" are not generally good enough reasons to allow a woman to choose what to do with her own body, but that's why you don't get to decide what I do with my reproductive organs; I do.

[atheistjd]

The pregnancy center I support does present the message of Christ to women. They do not make any stipulations on providing services however. They do provide assistance such as diapers and clothes to the women and they also partner with area childcare centers which provide free service in some cases.

While these local pregnancy centers do not have the same budget and cannot provide as much service as some government plans, I do feel woman are better served by these private organizations. I wish there were more of them and they had more donations so that we could reduce the amount that government financial assistance needed.

How are women better served by facilities that generally have no actual medical doctors and are pushing a religious agenda? Women, not their fetuses.

[jericho]

How are women better served by facilities that generally have no actual medical doctors and are pushing a religious agenda? Women, not their fetuses.

Because the women are cared for by someone who is most likely a volunteer or low paid staff and has more of a heart for the person. Also, the money of the organization is used more efficient than government funds, so dollars are stretched and help more people.

[wtfrenchtoast]

Because the women are cared for by someone who is most likely a volunteer or low paid staff and has more of a heart for the person. Also, the money of the organization is used more efficient than government funds, so dollars are stretched and help more people.

Could you possibly cite some sources on that one for me? What makes them more efficient? I personally feel it would run more efficiently if you didn't spend time shoving your religious beliefs down the woman's throat and shaming her for her reproductive choices.

[BravaAmica]

I am against abortion. I believe God has a plan for every living person. I also believe abortion is used primarily as a method of convenience.

I take issue with this. I was a virgin until I was raped at 17 and ended up pregnant. The moment I found out about the pregnancy, it was like being raped all over again. Also, if I kept the baby, the rapist could sue me for parental rights, visitation, custody, child support or tried to block an adoption. (He had a history of acquaintance rape and then stalking and harassing his victims.) I knew I could not keep the baby so I chose to abort. It was not a decision I made in a blithe or glib manner. And it definitely wasn't for my own convenience. It would have been convenient to have a baby- my parents were supportive of whatever decision I made, I had just graduated high school and could have put college off for a year, and my part-time job would not have had a problem with a pregnant teenager. But I chose to abort because I could not stand knowing that my rapist left a piece of himself behind. So, yeah, saying that women have abortions because it's convenient, like I'm booking a haircut, is really stupid.

[jericho]

ORLY? So glad you believe that... You are incorrect, but I'm glad it makes you feel better about caring more for fetuses than for living, breathing women. I find that people who use this line have an interesting definition of convenience.

"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.

You either think all these promiscuous young welfare queens are walking around having abortions because it's a Tuesday and they'd rather get their nails done, which the data doesn't back up at all, or you think the above reasons are invalid. Granted, for rabid pro-lifers, "work," "education" and "caring for dependents" are not generally good enough reasons to allow a woman to choose what to do with her own body, but that's why you don't get to decide what I do with my reproductive organs; I do.

If I am to believe that every unborn child is sacred and has a purpose, then my opinion would have to be that all of the reasons you listed are a matter of convenience for the mother. This is not to say I have no sympathy for the mother, I just believe life is more important than social situation.

[atheistjd]

Because the women are cared for by someone who is most likely a volunteer or low paid staff and has more of a heart for the person. Also, the money of the organization is used more efficient than government funds, so dollars are stretched and help more people.

Than by a medical doctor? A woman seeking advice for a medical issue is better served by someone who has no professional training because doctors get paid? Wow, I hope you can tell all my friends who slaved away in med school and residency to serve people and save lives that they don't have "enough of a heart for people" to serve them as well as some bored, anti-choice volunteer :roll:

The money is "stretched further"? Is that what you call having free workers and providing no actual medical services? Money does go pretty far when you aren't providing any goods or services...

[jericho]

ORLY? So glad you believe that... You are incorrect, but I'm glad it makes you feel better about caring more for fetuses than for living, breathing women. I find that people who use this line have an interesting definition of convenience.

"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."

Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.

You either think all these promiscuous young welfare queens are walking around having abortions because it's a Tuesday and they'd rather get their nails done, which the data doesn't back up at all, or you think the above reasons are invalid. Granted, for rabid pro-lifers, "work," "education" and "caring for dependents" are not generally good enough reasons to allow a woman to choose what to do with her own body, but that's why you don't get to decide what I do with my reproductive organs; I do.

If I am to believe that every unborn child is sacred and has a purpose, then my opinion would have to be that all of the reasons you listed are a matter of convenience for the mother. This is not to say I have no sympathy for the mother, I just believe life is more important than social situation.