A person’s still not a person no matter how small in Mississippi
Three weeks ago Mississippi’s Initiative 26, or the “personhood amendment,” enjoyed 80+% support. Last week internal pro-life polling showed it was still up by 18 points.
Yet Initiative 26 ended up losing last night 58-42%.
There were two simple reasons for the loss:
- Abortion industry operatives led by Planned Parenthood and their megaphone, MSM, swarmed into Mississippi during the final days and spread rampant, wild-eyed misinformation.
- Then there was Gov. Haley Barbour, who voted for Initiative 26 after he vented against it, wreaking untold damage to pro-life support…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIo_9b8MVNY[/youtube]
When such a prominent pro-lifer as Barbour began parroting ridiculous pro-abortion lies such as that mothers with ectopic pregnancies might die if Initiative 26 passed, you knew there was serious trouble.
Inexplicably, Barbour put himself on a whirlwind press junket in the final days to make the other side’s talking points.
Thankfully, pro-life groups that disagree strategically about personhood initiatives, like Americans United for Life and the National Right to Life Committee, stayed out of it this time. AUL’s Clarke Forsythe even went so far as to write a warmly neutral op ed about personhood in the Washington Times.
That is not to say NRLC attorney James Bopp could keep quiet. Bopp opposed personhood in Colorado, decimating pro-life support among Catholic leaders in particular. He was at it again in Mississippi.
The bright side is Initiative 26 enjoyed bi-partisan support. This is important because Barbour bragged that had Initiative 26 gone through the legislature rather than straight to the people it would have passed, according to CNN:
“If they had come to the Mississippi legislature and said, ‘look, we want to change the constitution and say life begins at conception our legislature would have passed that,” he said….
“We’d all be better off if this had gone through the legislative process instead of trying to change the bill of rights of the Mississippi constitution by the initiative. You would have had hearings, people would have understood it, you would have gone through the conference committee and you would have ironed out a lot of these wrinkles.”
So let’s see that. Let’s hold legislative hearings on how a personhood amendment would impact IVF, ectopic pregnancies, the IUD, and hormonal contraceptives.
Personhood USA’s Keith Mason (pictured left) told me this morning another option might be to retool the wording of Initiative 26 and reintroduce it.
Still fathoming the loss, Keith was nevertheless resolute.
“We are called to be a voice for the voiceless and to plead the cause of the innocent,” Keith said.”Win or lose, we did that.”
It’s still sad to ponder that it was people who call themselves pro-life who sank Initiative 26, not pro-aborts, and this not for strategical differences.
“The number one comment I got was, ‘I heard women would be investigated if they had a miscarriage,'” Keith told me.
Pro-lifers were way too easily duped.
And pro-lifers are also way too amenable to abortifacient contraceptives and to suspending little humans in frozen animation.
[Top photo via The New York Times; bottom photo via GeorgeMcGinn.wordpress.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
And pro-lifers are also way too amenable to abortifacient contraceptives and to suspending little humans in frozen animation.
Too true.
A friend of a friend actually left the Catholic church so that she and her husband could pursue IVF.
Several miscarried children later, I hope they are now reconsidering their decision to have IVF. Why is adoption always the last option to be pursued?? I don’t understand.
As for personhood, well… personhood and human rights have NEVER been easily won. It’s usually easier to believe lies and misinformation, since that’s the status quo.
I just have to say – I think pro-lifers on this issue can’t have their cake and eat it to.
You can’t yell for a year that Health Care Reform is evil because it doesn’t explicitly enough say something - and yet in this manner, say “well, simply trust us – this sort of stuff that you fear won’t happen”.
I think you have to decide which side of the fence you want to be on – do you want everything spelled out and defined or not?
The personhood amendment would not have banned abortions in Mississippi: http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/08/personhood-amendment-in-mississippi-likely-wont-ban-abortion/
Also, Mississippi has already banned abortion. All that is needed is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. That should be the focus of every pro-lifer who truly wants to end abortion: http://www.lifenews.com/2007/03/22/state-2183/
It never ceases to amaze me how weak and gullible and cowardly people are.
I guess Our Lord’s use of sheep as an analogy to humans if fitting – sheep aren’t the smartest of animals.
Lord have mercy.
Several miscarried children later, I hope they are now reconsidering their decision to have IVF. Why is adoption always the last option to be pursued?? I don’t understand.
I don’t say this to endorse the use of IVF, but for at least half of the couples I know of who eventually turned to IVF, adoption wasn’t the last option to be pursued. It was just the most expensive option. Lots of insurance companies cover some of the costs of IVF, but not many cover the costs of adoption.
The “abortofacient” effects of hormonal contracepives should never have been approved in the labels by the FDA 1) Most of the data come from ANIMAL models and 2) the studies that did look at human endometrial linings were VASTLY underpowered to detect a PHYSIOLOGICALLY meaninful difference. Personhood campaigns are simply not going to win on this issue because anywhere from 65-85% of women have used hormonal contraception or IUDs in their lifetime.
“Let’s have hearings on the effects of this on contraceptives and IUDs”. That will not matter because any prosecutor, judge, or state official can read INTENT from a law as to how they see fit, and apply it accordingly. Please see a recent case where a woman in Utah refused a C-section, and was subsequently tried for voluntary manslaughter. Did the framers of the Utah fetal homicide law INTEND for it to be used that way? Probably not, but a rabid prosecutor saw fit to bring charges anyway.
Ive posted this before but Griswold vs Connecticut (and Eisenstadt) is an insurmountable legal hurdle to stop supposedly abortafacient contraceptives. 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices have expressed support for their underpinnings, along with the Supremacy Clause for the FDA and DEA to regulate medications and pharmaceuticals.
You have to go through Roe/Doe, PP v Casey, Griswold/Eisenstadt, and probably Lawrence vs Texas, and let states override the FDA’s power to grant *PRIMARY* indications to get an amendment like this to stand unseverable.
If people are looking for a less expensive way to adopt, there’s always adopting from the foster care system. Sure these kids might be older, but they would love a permanent home.
The point is that obviously this couple felt the Catholic Church (of which I am not a member) was being unreasonable in its stance regarding IVF. Perhaps now after having lost their children they may see that there was some wisdom in the CC’s stance.
Adoption costs are sometimes covered by employers, at least up to a certain amount. And adopted children are, of course, covered by health care like any other dependent if the employer offers family coverage.
But I guess the couple can be comforted to know their insurance not only paid for their children’s conception, it also paid for the healthcare costs in relation to pre-term delivery, NICU bills, and care for all the surgeries and tests in regards to the high risk pregnancies. ??? I have to wonder if they were told about all the risks. Oh, and they also had a friend whom they met while going through IVF. The woman was pregnant with triplets and lost them as well. This happens more often than I think the reproductive technology industry would care to admit.
Is it really worth it? After going through all that, I would think adoption (which you can also RAISE money for, btw) would be a much better choice.
I’m sure the miscarriages from people using IVF have nothing to do with the fact that the couples are already high risk for problem pregnancies. Clearly, it must be part of the liberal conspiricy to kill more “babies”.
So we learn from this. Next time the amendment (or initiative, whatever) is introduced, we make sure to carefully, thoughtfully, and directly address teh issue of how this plays into an ectopic pregnancy. We learn what the reasons are that people don’t support it, we fix them without compromise, and eventually it will boil down to the fact that people still want to be able to kill their unborn, not that they are worried about whether or not the fetus will be issued citizenship while still in teh womb or any other of the silly “20 questions” game that we see being the “challenge” to personhood.
The problem isn’t other pro-life activists and their strategic concerns, the problem is with the personhood amendment itself. However true and righteous a statement it is, it is vague and lends itself to pro-aborts who know how to exploit pro-lifers and others who I agree are “way too amenable to abortifacient contraceptives and to suspending little humans in frozen animation.” Because our culture is so wrapped up in our manna from Mammon, the conversation always ends up about unrelated issues and lies like miscarriage willl be considered murder, instead of focusing on the issue at hand. Though personhood supporters don’t like them for whatever reason, specific targeted measures keep the focus on the issue at hand and advance protection. I’m sad that it did not pass, but it is no surprise and should motivate us to continue educating, educating, educating until the soil is fertile enough.
Paging Abby Johnson, what say you?
And pro-lifers are also way too amenable to abortifacient contraceptives and to suspending little humans in frozen animation.
Bobby – What if, as you suggest, the bottom line is that the majority of people in this country want the right to murder the unborn?
I suppose the time and resources would move from legal battles to winning over people’s hearts. I’m not suggesting the point of “giving up” is even close – I just wonder sometimes, if it was a given that abortion was going to exist at a legal level, what would be the next course of action – how do we get people who believe that abortion is their only option, believing that other options are better?
eventually it will boil down to the fact that people still want to be able to kill their unborn, not that they are worried about whether or not the fetus will be issued citizenship while still in teh womb or any other of the silly “20 questions” game that we see being the “challenge” to personhood.
Bingo.
“What if, as you suggest, the bottom line is that the majority of people in this country want the right to murder the unborn? ”
So my point here is then, we can at least discuss abortion qua abortion and not get sucked down all these red herrings. And as you suggest, there definitely needs to be changes of heart. I think the reasons to be pro-life are intellectually much more compelling than the reasons to be pro-choice, and so I just want to bring this whole debate to the level of discussing the morality of abortion because there, I am quite confident we have the intellectual edge. Emotional edge, maybe not (which is one reason why some will never be convinced) but again, I just want to get this on the level of discussing the actual issue.
i really hate that.
At least they tried, though. Here in Canada, no pro-life laws exist, and almost none ever get a chance to be voted on.
I’m sure the miscarriages from people using IVF have nothing to do with the fact that the couples are already high risk for problem pregnancies
There have been several studies showing IVF increasing risk for cancer, genetic abnormalities, stillbirths, and the list goes on and on. And the studies do control for things like age so there is mounting evidence that IVF itself is the determinant factor.
I do not remember what it was called, but there was a study that found that IVF babies had less of a certain substance which is needed to turn the proper genes on.
Just recently there was a report that six studies have shown a 41% increase risk of pre-eclampsia with IVF pregnancies:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/10/20/ivf-increases-pre-eclampsia-risk-115875-23501163/
Extremely depressing. I agree with Bobby Bambino 100% – the problem was not disputes over IVF/ectopic pregnancies/contraception. Rather, the problem is that Mississippians, once safely ensconced in the dark privacy of the polling booth, have no desire to protect innocent lives.
Colorado has always been a heavily pro-choice state, but if we can’t win Mississippi (or South Dakota for that matter – see 2006), just where the frack can we win? Initiative 26 was never going to be held up in Court, so this election wasn’t about “changing laws.” No, instead, what this election showed is just how many minds need to be changed. This election revealed that Mississippi, for all its much touted godliness and social conservatism, is no different than any ordinary socially liberal state when it comes to taking human life.
America is a messed up place. Isaiah 1:4 seems about right.
Actually, Mississippi did a lot better than many other places where personhood has been tried. A 60-40 split is not, by any means, personhood being “soundly defeated.” So, yes, this is depressing. But not nearly as depressing as the Colorado/S. Dakota numbers. Honestly, I think that this vote ought to have pro-aborts quaking in their shoes. That’s how thin their hold is.
In the past, in other states, people tended to vote against such to an even greater extent than the polls showed was likely, beforehand.
There have been several studies showing IVF increasing risk for cancer, genetic abnormalities, stillbirths, and the list goes on and on. And the studies do control for things like age so there is mounting evidence that IVF itself is the determinant factor.
Down syndrome is one of those genetic abnormalities which has recently been shown to be linked with IVF.
Jill, I’m with you up until the very last line. It’s been proven that Amendment 26 would not have banned hormonal contraceptives:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2011/11/abortion-advocates-dance-around.html
This would be why:
http://rightremedy.org/articles/226
Denise Maria, and then later Kel…
You both refer to studies claiming my sarcastic statement about IVF using women already being High Risk pregnancies as not the cause of failed pregnancies. You also claim it leads to health problems. Can you please show me the articles in the medical and scientific journals to which these studies were published? Sorry, but the Mirror is not a scientific journal. All scientific queries must go through the Scientific Method. First a problem/observation is made. Then a hypothesis is formed. Then tests/experiments are done. Then hypothesis is revisted. Then more tests/experiements are done by other scientists. Then the hypothesis is revisted again. If after hundreds of tests/experiements have been completed and the hypothesis can not be proven false, it is then considered a theory. Peer reviewed scientific journals are an essiental part of that process. After a scientist completes the test/experiment, it’s published in a peer (as in other scientists in that field) reviewed journal (as in periodical for that field) and then duplicated by other scientists. It is only after other scientists confirm the first scientist’s work, that it is considered scientifically valid. All of the aforementioned steps doesn’t even include the fact that there are stringent guidelines on how to run a test/experiment with scientific validity. So, again, please show me where the information you are refering to is located in the relevant scientific journals.
What if a local government passed some kind of personhood legislation with consequences? Could the local law enforcement officers be authorized to begin arresting IVF lab technicians who do pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (discarding the “unfit”)? Could they arrest OB/Gyns who do D&Cs as a way to perform early abortions? And, of course, could they arrest the usual culprits (Planned Parenthood abortionists)?
I’m seriously asking this question. What kinds of laws can localities pass? I know they can limit the sale of alcohol, regulate businesses, put fluoride in our water, zone our neighborhoods. Anyone thought about getting localities (the smaller the better because pro-life populations can be targetted) to pass something even as focused, “because all humans are persons from their biological beginnings, IVF clinics that do not transfer all embryos created will be denied business licenses.”
If one such law passed, in however small a town, wouldn’t that set off the same kind of “train wreck” we were hoping for in Mississippi? If this is not feasible, please shoot it down quickly as I’ve been thinking about this for a long time.
Re IVF – I’m thinking that we need to take the bull by the horns here. The sob stories from couples who are willing to sacrifice 10 embryos for one inserted are getting to be too much for me. (Not to mention the cultural acceptance of egg and sperm donation and surrogate motherhood). Unlike focusing of pictures of children in the womb with arms and legs, Personhood brings the focus to the first moments of life and that’s where the Brave New World has dug in with IVF and embryonic stem cell research as it’s Trojan Horse.
We will never end abortion as long as there are exceptions not only for rape and incest, but also for the artificial reproductive technologies, abortifacient “contraception” and ESCR.
What I want to know is: If the “pro-life” opposition to the personhood amendment is right, if the personhood amendment really won’t do anything or will actually hurt the pro-life movement in the long run…
Why does Planned Parenthood fill their pants at the mention of it?
Seriously, how does that make sense? Why is a small part of the pro-life movement (but large enough to really hurt) on the same side as Planned Parenthood!?
Duck,
First of all, the Mirror article is not the source, but rather mentions that there have been six studies done showing the risk. The fertility industry is a scandal and there is much real scientific research out there showing the dangers of IVF. I will try to find more actual studies tomorrow, but here is one from the New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa010035
Off topic:
Hey mods, I noticed the site was down again this morning (and possibly last night).
Also, off topic & a bit of a more personal question:
Anyone know of any good over-the-counter medications or home remedies for nausea and preventing emesis? I’m experiencing nausea as a side effect of two medications I’m on, plus having acid reflux disease is making it worse (I’m on Nexium, but I’m out & can’t get a refill until I see my primary care doc again). Any suggestions/advice from our seasoned vets (mothers or nurses) on managing nausea/vomiting ?
@ rachel does your doctor know you are having all this nausea? id let he or she know. i hate hate hate to be nauseated. id be hesitant to give you any advice because i dont know what meds are causing it. i usually use zantac otc or good old fashioned pepto bismol of prilosec. gingerale and saltines can help.
Rachel C.
I do believe our mod Bethany experienced that but tried a special diet that worked!!
If you look under the Team tab you will find her email address.
Here is her blog
http://bethany.preciousinfants.com/
I am so sorry. I found nothing that worked for me except the 17th week of pregnancy and it was over. :(
@Hiawatha
Local municipalities have tried this before with respect to COHABITATION. There was a Missouri town that had a zoning/residency ordinance that prevented more than 4 unrelated people from living together. It was also backed by Fire regulation from the Fire Marshall. The primary basis of the law was for safety and uniform zoning regulation.
Then, there was an unmarried couple that had three children who were living in a house. The town informed them they were in violation of the ordinance and either had to move or get married. The couple fought it, obtained a lawyer, and filed a court challenge under Lawrence vs Texas.
When faced with the prospect of enormous legal bills and court costs, the town backed down. A judge also ruled the ordinance unconstitutional under Lawrence vs Texas. The same has held true in Virginia for an unmarried couple living together during a protracted legal fight, where one challenged the basis of a settlement was invalid because “cohabitating” was illegal and rendered proceeds forfeit. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down the cohabitation law under Lawrence as well.
On the questions regarding IVF, I’m hoping that you will look at and share this information http://simone-perseverance.blogspot.com/p/10-reasons-to-choose-naprotechnology.html. It appears that IVF may not be addressing the underlying reason for infertility and the woman’s capacity to carry her child resulting in a lucrative industry that treats infertility with a one-size fits all solution that is ultimately immoral in its destruction of human beings.
Andrew, amen, my thoughts exactly! If Personhood Amendments actually cement the foundations of Roe v. Wade, why does Planned Parenthood freak out every time it is proposed? I found it very strange to have Planned Parenthood and certain pro-life organizations on the same side against the Personhood Amendment.
Denise Maria,
Thank you. I look forward to reading that information and researching the scientific validity of those claims. If the site goes down, you can email me those links at duckishighonquack@yahoo.com
Duck
Duck,
Here is a study showing the IVF-pre-eclampsia link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165665
Denise Maria,
That’s just the abstract. I would need to see the whole publication of the study.
Sometimes you have to pay $$$ to get the entire study. I will try to send you some more today or tomorrow.
I know that money/membership is required. The problem with abstracts though, is that it only states the author’s conclusion. It doesn’t show all the steps taken and data to see if the author’s conclusion accurately matches the science.
@ rachael….im sorry i didnt know you were pregnant. my docs put me on phenergan with my last 2 pregnancies. i dehydrated both times. i hope things get better for you. i didnt have morning sickness. i had all day sickness. it sucked!