"Personhood" amendment gains ground

Details, from the New York Times:

A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth controlas murder.

With this far-reaching anti-abortion strategy, the proponents of what they call personhood amendments hope to reshape the national debate.

“I view it as transformative,” said Brad Prewitt, a lawyer and executive director of the Yes on 26 campaign, which is named for the Mississippi proposition. “Personhood is bigger than just shutting abortion clinics; it’s an opportunity for people to say that we’re made in the image of God.”

Many doctors and women’s health advocates say the proposals would cause a dangerous intrusion of criminal law into medical care, jeopardizing women’s rights and even their lives.

The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and “morning-after pills” that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories.

The amendment has been endorsed by candidates for governor from both major parties, and it appears likely to pass, said W. Martin Wiseman, director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University. Legal challenges would surely follow, but even if the amendment is ultimately declared unconstitutional, it could disrupt vital care, critics say, and force years of costly court battles…

…The drive for personhood amendments has split the anti-abortion forces nationally. Some groups call it an inspired moral leap, while traditional leaders of the fight, including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, have refused to promote it, charging that the tactic is reckless and could backfire, leading to a Supreme Court defeat that would undermine progress in carving away at Roe v. Wade.

The approach, granting legal rights to embryos, is fundamentally different from the abortion restrictions that have been adopted in dozens of states. These try to narrow or hamper access to abortions by, for example, sharply restricting the procedures at as early as 20 weeks, requiring women to view ultrasounds of the fetus, curbing insurance coverage and imposing expensive regulations on clinics.

The Mississippi amendment aims to sidestep existing legal battles, simply stating that “the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

Read more.

Comments

  1. justamouse says:

    Awesome. A person’s a person no matter how small.

  2. your are right justamouse. It is Awesome. It is amazing that we have legal murder based on age and location. A matter of a few months and a few feet allow human beings to be slaughtered legally. That is as crazy as anything ever devised by Satan. We see moms now killing infants and it gaining national news status when only a few months earlier it would have been legal and not news even when 4,000 babies die each and every day. Can you imagine any epidemic killing 4,000 people a day for decades and having it not the focus of everyone’s attention to end it? I lived through the time of polio when every parent wondered if it would strike their kid that day and the joy when the disease ended. Back then, you could see as many as 6,000 die in a year. compare that to 4,000 each and every day, year after year, decade after decade.

    It is long past time that every human being is given full rights from time of conception to natural death. We once thought blacks were not equal and did not have rights. Now the same Democratic Party that fought to prevent blacks from being equal are in the battle to keep children in the womb from having equal rights. Seems like a serious problem with that party.

  3. Don from NH says:

    Greta, dont try to rewrite history, It was the Democratic Party led by President Kennedy and completed by President Johnson that led to the most sweeping civil rites changes in this nation.

    Those civil rites changes brought equality to the blacks which were fought tooth and nail by the republicans and the “southern democrats”.

    When civil rights became law the “southern democrats” ran as fast as they could to the republican party and have been welcomed there ever since.

  4. From their lips to Gpd’s ears. A constitutional ammendment is a tall order, requiring passage in 3/4 of the states. So I can’t say it’s likely or even have much of a chance. But miracles do happen. Let’s pray.

  5. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
    and before you were born I consecrated you;
    I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

  6. Don NH, by the time of JFK, the march was finally overwhelming the democratic party. The Republicans and some liberal democrats in the north had been fighting the battle for civil rights for generations. The folks who were firing water canons on civil rights marchers were solid democrats, many of whom led and belong to the KKK. Bull Connors was not a Republican. He was a lifelong democrat and died a democrat. Senator Byrd was a KKK leader as was his father. The elder Senator Byrd along with the elder Senator Gore, both lifelong democrats, fought to block any civil rights legislation. When FDR ran for office, he gave a wink and nod he would support anti lynching laws. However, in office, he refused to get involved because his party was not in favor or ending lynching or other terror tactices.

    It is those who are in denial that try to say that the demorcatic party from its inception was not the party of slavery and even went to war to keep it legal and expanded. When they lost the war, they did everything including starting the terror group the KKK to stop any movement for black equality. The 13-14-15th amendments on freed slave rights passed without the involvement of the democratic south after the war.

    Harry Truman, needing black votes after the party split in 1948 party convention, made a committment to de segregate the military and did so by executive order knowing it would not survive democratic congressional filabuster. He also made some changes in the Washington to desegregate the federal government which had been re segregted under Democrat Woodrow Wilson and left alone by FDR. FDR refused to desegregate the military before or during WWII.

    History needs to be told in the true light of day and not distorted. When some point out that FDR got about 70% of the black vote which was a major improvement for democrats, you have to remember that the democrats controlled the south and prevented most blacks from voting in all those states so the total black vote was primarly those who were part of the first and second great migration of African Americans out of the south and now living in larger midwest cities working in industry and living in urban environments often controlled by democrat politicians. LBJ and the civil rights act was passed with almost solid Republican support. But you have to go back a lot of years to see all the efforts to get any civil rights legislation passed..

    The first civil rights legilsation was championed by the man who was beaten by a democrat for speaking out against slavery, Sen Charles Sumner. His legislation passed after he died and pleaded for its passage on his death bed. In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

    During the twenty years of the FDR and Truman administrations, the Democrats refused to enact any civil rights legislation. In contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which had been written by his Attorney General, a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The original draft would have permitted the federal government to sue anyone violating another person’s constitutional rights, but this powerful provision would have to wait until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The bill had to be weakened considerably to secure enough Democrat votes to pass, so violations would be civil, not criminal offenses, and penalties were light. Vice President Richard Nixon helped overcome a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. The GOP then strengthened enforcement with its 1960 Civil Rights Act.

    All of this came before the 1965 civil rights act and LBJ. The media at the time gave the credit almost entirely to the Democrats. The LBJ war on poverty and massive give away programs created much of the nanny state mess we have today but with the help of civil rights democrats, helped solidfy African Americans to the party.

    As to democrat racist leaving the party to become republicans, I challenge anyone to name them and show that once in the republican party their racist views were championed. The greatest movement of democrats to the republican party came with Christians who hated the movement of the Democratic party to abortion and other perversions. The good ol racist democrats stayed with the party until they died off and or were voted out.

    Please show me where any of this history is wrong in any way.

  7. thanks for sharing this article.

  8. “It was the Democratic Party led by President Kennedy and completed by President Johnson that led to the most sweeping civil rites changes in this nation.”

    So Don from NH, why isn’t the Democratic Party, the party of the people, fighting today for the rights of the unborn as vigorously as they fought for civil rights? Huh?
    I noticed you ignored that part of Greta’s comment.

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X