Mississippi Personhood Amendment

[lillibet]

Originally posted by gabrielleabelle at Mississippi Personhood Amendment
Okay, so I don't usually do this, but this is an issue near and dear to me and this is getting very little no attention in the mainstream media

Comments

[lillibet]

Thanks! This stuff is completely terrifying. I love being a mom, but having that be the only identity open to me as a person is just repugnant.

[fanw]

Sounds pretty awful. Ohio worked hard to make abortion more difficult last year, by trying to mandate that you could not abort something with a verifiable heartbeat -- and that starts at 8 wks. Didn't pass, but I was volunteering at Planned Parenthood at the time and they were worried.

Do you have a little more information though? I find the threat that it would ban birth control pretty unfounded. Yes, non-barrier birth controls prevent implantation, but there's no proof at any point that there is a fertilized egg, so no one should be able to get in trouble over it unless they'd like to collect sanitary pads and examine each one under a microscope. Sounds like a bit of liberal-baiting to me, but I could be wrong. Am I?

[lillibet]

The Huffington Post has a comment from Les Riley, the founder of Personhood Mississippi, one of the groups behind the amendment:

"I can't speak to all the possible effects, obviously," he said, "but it would ensure equal rights for all human beings regardless of their developmental status, it would outlaw abortion, and it would protect our women and children."

The amendment does not, in itself ban abortion or anything else. It just changes the meaning of the word "person" in all state laws. That would certainly make abortion illegal and create a case for prosecuting women who have experienced miscarriages. I agree that banning birth control would take another legal leap, but I do believe that this is part of the agenda of these groups and that passage of this law would strap on the roller-skates for this slippery slope.

[lillibet]

This morning Slate has an article answering this question and others about the potential scope of the amendment. Their answer to the question seems to be yes, it would make many forms of birth control illegal, as well as IVF.

[fanw]

Thank you for the extra information. It is quite informative, and I was most interested to see that someone from the proponent side agrees it would ban some forms of birth control. (Saying that NYTimes, Daily Kos, and Slate all agree tells me nothing. Saying the Economist agrees makes me take a second look.)

I continue to be skeptical of threats that are expounded by one side and denied by the other. For example, the later argument that a fetus' right to life "might apply in ectopic pregnancy" is disingenuous. Ectopic pregnancies kill women at 8-10weeks gestation. That's not a time when any intervention could save the fetus. It's not even close to the barely viable 24 weeks. So, while 'in theory' some things 'might' apply, in practice it is not just virtually but veritably impossible.