Five reasons Mississippi’s personhood initiative lost (aside from the other side’s whopping lies)
As the dust settles after the defeat of Mississippi’s personhood initiative last week, here are five reasons I think it lost.
These have nothing to do with the whopping lies the other side told. In other words, these are constructive criticisms.
I ran my thoughts past Keith Mason of Personhood USA, who took them well. He even gave me one I hadn’t thought of. This is a learning process.
1. We should have anticipated and precluded their whopping lies.
Planned Parenthood et al followed the same successful playbook they used to defeat Colorado’s personhood initiative – twice. We knew they were going to say miscarrying mothers would be interrogated by police if Initiative 26 passed, and that mothers with ectopic pregnancies would be allowed to die on the gurney. We should have run ahead of their talking points.
2. Our people need to talk.
The morning after the defeat of Initiative 26, two highly respected pro-life organizations released two utterly contradictory legal analyses. Click both to enlarge…
This is at the very least awkward. Someone’s right, and someone’s wrong. Pro-lifers have varied opinions on lots of things, but either Initiative 26 would have prompted the Supreme Court to take a second look at Roe v Wade, or it wouldn’t have. For the sake of the movement, pro-life legal eagles need to “reason together,” as another Someone once said.
3. Their GOTV overwhelmed our GOTV.
A well-intentioned rag-tag bunch of personhood supporters was completely overrun by the pro-abortion machine in getting out the vote. I watched on Twitter and Facebook as Planned Parenthoods across the country worked together to get like-minded Mississippi voters to the polls on Election Day. We did not have the same sort of organization.
4. We sent conflicting messages.
Would Initiative 26 impact IVF or not? Would it ban certain contraceptives? The basic problem here was trying to balance Catholic personhood supporters and Protestant personhood supporters, who hold opposing views, generally speaking. But trying to tiptoe between the factions ultimately added to the confusion and hurt the cause, for instance a spokesperson saying contraception would be impacted by Initiative 26 and a viral ad saying it would not.
Lila Rose was scheduled to speak at an Initiative 26 rally the day before Election Day but pulled out when she couldn’t get a commitment from organizers that IVF and hormonal contraceptives wouldn’t be condoned.
5. Friendly fire ultimately killed personhood, namely Haley Barbour.
Personhood USA has commissioned a scientific analysis of the election. Preliminary results show 8% of previously undecideds voted “no” after hearing Barbour express misgivings about Initiative 26.
Mason told me the Secretary of State’s final vote count, out tomorrow, will show ~45% voted for the measure. So Haley Barbour killed Initiative 26. As one person from the other side told Mason, “Haley Barbour was a gem to us.” Here’s just one facet of that gem…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIw52t0X1gY&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
But still the drum beat
More of Personhood USA’s after-election analysis:
- There were 4,300 television newscasts around the globe about the personhood initiative the week of the election, translating into 117 million viewers. The value of those newscasts was over $11 million.
- There were 5,900 printed news articles – from the Associated Press to Al Jazeera – in every state and in many countries.
- The day after the election the word “personhood” trended #4 on Google.
Regarding the instructive value of personhood initiatives, I could say it no better than did Time magazine writer Dominique Browning, believe it or not:
Yet the national conversation that was triggered by this radical proposal was instructive. The issue of when life begins, and how much control over a woman’s body the government should have, and how a society weighs the value of one against the other, is of such profound importance that it should be constantly revisited – at the risk of provoking outrage.
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.
It seems that prematurely introducing measures to ban all abortions — which cannot go into effect at this time due to court rulings — unnecessarily shifts the public debate to questions about rape, incest, life of the mother, the impact on birth control, etc., and these tend to hurt pro-life sentiment and move people toward the other side. On the other hand, measures like partial-birth abortion bans and fetal pain laws clearly help pro-life sentiment and move people to the pro-life side. So I am skeptical of the educational justification for personhood amendments. I don’t see any clear justification for devoting our time and resources to those particular measures (as opposed to others) at this time.
For instance, Lila Rose was scheduled to speak at an Initiative 26 rally the day before Election Day but pulled out when she couldn’t get a commitment from organizers that IVF and hormonal contraceptives wouldn’t be condoned.
Perhaps Rose should start with her own house — Abby Johnson has recently expressed support for both IVF and birth control; and Rose routinely does fundraisers for NRTL affiliates that support birth control, IVF and of course, abortions in the exceptions cases.
From Browning, quoted above: “Yet the national conversation that was triggered by this radical proposal was instructive. The issue of when life begins….”
.
When life begins isn’t an “issue”. It’s a scientific fact that life begins at conception.
How disappointing to hear that about Lila Rose. I used to be a supporter. Now I am not. We need to get our priorities in order as a collective, or else we will be doomed to constant failure, and prioritizing goals with what can be interpreted as having primarily a religious prerogative rather than concentrating on goals and ideals that are unanimously held by the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers, but also easily proven to those not on any side and easily proven and illustrated to laymen.
Lila Rose had to pull out because as a Catholic, she undertands that IVF and contraception are wrong, and that to condone them is to condone something that is morallly wrong. As Catholics, our goal always has to be doing what the Father asks of us, not trying to make a political statement. She did the right thing.
Abby Johnson has recently expressed support for both IVF and birth control
Didn’t Abby convert to Catholicism?
I encourage more Personhood initiatives. The debate is not premature – it is 40 years overdue. Let’s be honest – even though the other side is totally dishonest. If contraception prevent the embryo from attaching to the womb, then Personhood amendments would ban those forms of contraception. Copulating couples will find other forms of birth control and the drug industry can be counted on to develop drugs that comply with the law. If IVF protocols cause the disposal of “excess” embryos, then the IVF industry can do the right thing and create only the number of embryos which can be implanted. And a total ban on the useless embryonic stem cell research would certainly result in the redirect of precious funds towards more useful research.
American government entities have never gone on witch hunts against women for reproductive “malfeasance” – unlike the Chinese. I would expect that the government would regulate women’s behavior even less than it regulates the abortion industry (which is virtually not at all).
Lila Rose had to pull out because as a Catholic, she undertands that IVF and contraception are wrong, and that to condone them is to condone something that is morallly wrong.
Really? Then why fundraise for NRTL affiliates, helping defeat personhood efforts in those states. Talk about contributing to the problem.
It failed because it was an octopus of an amendement. It had too many tentacles just waiting to be guided into other areas of peoples lives. Once people realised that there was more to it than what was presented, they bailed.
The pro-life movement needs to stop making excuses. Initiative 26 failed because the majority of Mississippi voters don’t think killing babies should be illegal – end of story.
Albert Mohler is one of the few who seems to have understood what happened http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/17/were-all-harry-blackmun-now-the-lessons-of-mississippi/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlbertMohlersBlog+%28Albert+Mohler%27s+Blog%29
“The bitter lesson of Mississippi’s defeat of the human personhood amendment is this: When it comes to moral reasoning concerning the unborn child, far too many just adopt Harry Blackmun’s moral framework and want to tweak it. Many in the pro-life movement want to shift his lines of moral judgment, but not to repudiate his deadly logic.”
A couple of thoughts -
In my opinion, this is the first personhood debate that got national play (big time play), and at a national level, it was portrayed as ambiguous. I think in future states, the wording will have to be modified because I think a lot of folks in the nation have their minds made up on it now.
Point number one makes me feel that their were a bunch of rookies involved. Isn’t campaigns all about whopping lies and fear tactics. I remember Focus on the Family running a fake letter from 2016 if Obama won the Presidency – just a bunch of crazy what if’s and scenarios. That is what an election is – and if folks weren’t prepared for it, don’t blame the other side for lying because 1) if the law doesn’t spell it out, who says it isn’t a possible possibility and 2) you know that half truths and fearful questions are going to come. Got to be smart and got to be prepared…and if you don’t have a shovel when predictions of snow come true, don’t blame the snow!
In the interest of full disclosure, I also speak at NRLC affiliate events.
But, right or wrong, NRLC doesn’t take a position on contraception or IVF. Speaking at an NRLC state or county chapter event, where many local leaders do stand against IVF and contraception and where abortion is primarily the target, cannot be equated to speaking at an event where IVF or contraception are condoned.
It is true that NRLC attorney James Bopp has vocally opposed personhood initiatives, even this one, but not because IVF or contraception might be impacted. He fights personhood initiative because he thinks the timing is all wrong.
When Georgia filed the first Personhood amendment in 2007 we were hit by the other side with exactly the same tactics of lies and fear. Satan never changes effective tactics. We made a mistake that has been repeated twice iin CO and now in MS . . . we didn’t have “enabling legislation” to direct the press to that debunked and exposed the outrageous charges made to intimidate and scare the populace.
Nationwide state legislatures offer constitutional amendments year after year. They ALWAYS file an omnibus statute that clearly spells out the legislative intent of the amendment. It is a “trigger” statute that only goes into effect if the amendment is approved by the voters. Here in Georgia we are offering language that has been approved by FRC and other pro-personhood legal scholars AND we have EVERY section of the GA code being examined by a large group of pro-life attorneys to identify every conceivable impact that a Personhood amendment would have on our current law. By just filing the statute we take the press out of the equation. We just point to page 42 of the bill where it clearly states that doctors will continue to operate under the same “standard of care”, the section on Tort clearly absolves doctors of liablility claims when performing to save the life of the mother, a child in the womb WILL have “rights and responsibilities” granted to it under the law. Each state can trust their legislatures to decide which and to what degree.
We will be glad to make this statute avaiulable to any state legislative counsel for the purpose of adapting it to their respective state code.
Dan Becker
Georgia Right to Life
I think #1 is the biggest problem to overcome. Unfortunately, anything we do will always be misconstrued. Though I am against the Personhood strategy, I was debating with an old high school friend ranting about “fertilized eggs” and sending women who miscarry to prison, though I was trying to reason with him I was labelled a bigot and endured a hateful screed about how we hate women and imposing morality and listed to his absolute moral relativism (which conveniently he fails to apply to my views since even though nobody can agree he must 100% right….sigh, what a fool). Those hateful screeds are louder and spread fear into the hearts of those who unfortunately are too partial to their birth control and IVF to consider the good for anyone else.
Dan, that’s great news and just what is needed. I’m sure you’re in contact with the Personhood USA people?
All, re: Abby Johnson’s position on contraception/ivf, I emailed her and she gave me permission to post her response:
“I do not support any hormonal birth control. I have been VERY vocal about that. The reason we had a hard time getting pregnant was because of the birth control I had taken for many years. I have written about that several times on my blog. I do not support IVF if babies are discarded in the process. However, IVF doesn’t have to be done that way. One of my friends used IVF to have her children. They created two babies…both of them were implanted in her uterus…now she has twins. As long as there is no destruction of life, I am okay with IVF.”
xalisae,
I tell you what is disappointing…listening to an anonymous person on a blog and then determining you don’t support someone.
Lila has publicly supported personhood initiatives. She did the RIGHT thing by not going to speak for a rally if she is hearing double talk. One leader will tell you they are not trying to ban birth control. One leader will tell you that they are. One leader will tell you that they do not want to ban IVF. One leader will tell you that they are absolutely trying to ban IVF. No pro-life leader should support ANYTHING if they can’t get a clear answer. Lila does NOT support hormonal birth control or any other procedure where life is discarded. Neither do I. It is always best to talk to that person directly before you make up your mind on them.
I believe the personhood amendment because the leaders could not get on the same page. What is the bill trying to do? No one knows.
The inability of pro-life “leaders” to come to the same conclusions about the proposal is not the problem as much as the inability of the personhood movement’s leaders to come to one conclusion or even care that answering that question is important.
In MS, CO, MT, ND, and elsewhere the personhood proponents have been frustratingly dismissive when pressed on what the legislation would actually do. Even on whether it would ban abortion they have been inconsistent or non-responsive.
No matter what the issue, ballot measures do not pass if the voters do not have a clear understanding of what the measure will do. In this case, even the proponents were not clear as to what it would actually do. Indeed, they acted as though the question was a distraction.
So, let’s get this straight. It’s OK to do fundraisers for NRTL affiliates who support birth control and abortions in the exceptions cases, but because that inconvenient fact isn’t mentioned at said fundraiser, then it’s acceptable? But you can withdraw from a personhood event because there is no assurance that birth control and IVF won’t be condemned? Silent assent vs. open assent? Please.
NRTL does NOT support birth control. They do not take a stand on it. They have made that clear. They also do NOT support abortion in any case. I have no idea where you are getting that information from. They do not endorse personhood because it is shown to be a bad strategy…legislatively.
Lila absolutely SHOULD withdraw (along with any one else) from an event that is supporting an ambiguous bill. This is not a problem with Lila…this is a problem with the leaders of the personhood movement. A strong bill would NOT be ambiguous. They can not expect support if they have no idea what it is that this bill is actually supporting or condemning. Give me a break. If you think that is an example of a good bill, then you need some education in the legislative process.
Abby, please do YOUR research. How do you propose to end abortion, then? The strategy that you advocate has resulted in a death toll of 55+ million over the last 40 years. Do you want to wait another 40 years for the Supreme Court to possibly take a look? Furthermore, do the unborn have a right to be legally recognized as persons? Do you believe the preborn baby is a person?
[Lila] did the RIGHT thing by not going to speak for a rally if she is hearing double talk. One leader will tell you they are not trying to ban birth control. One leader will tell you that they are…No pro-life leader should support ANYTHING if they can’t get a clear answer.
She might have been less confused about their intentions if she’d watched a press conference the Yes on 26 campaign held on October 31. On that occasion they not only insisted that Issue 26 would not ban the pill, but they even played a LiveAction “sting” video in which Miss Rose “proved” that Planned Parenthood was lying when they claimed that access to the pill might be affected.
Has young Miss Rose’s credibility within the pro-life community become so tarnished that not even she believes herself anymore?
The video itself has been made unavailable, but here’s the press release: http://www.personhoodusa.com/press-release/live-action-and-personhood-usa-release-new-sting-operation-mississippi-personhood-vote
Found a link to the video that hasn’t been scrubbed yet. Miss Rose is not shown on camera, so I don’t know whether or not Personhood USA was telling the truth when it said the video “stars” her.
I agree with the five points. As for the conflicting messages:
The legal recognition of personhood for a zygote, embryo, or fetus would not outlaw abortion, just like the legal recognition of personhood for an adult does not outlaw the death penalty. It would serve the important function of affirming the biological fact that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human beings, while bringing all human beings within the scope of the law.
It would then be the responsibility of the state legislature that recognized personhood to pass laws dealing with zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as well as laws dealing with children, adolescents, and adults.
The Constitution does not provide an unconditional right to life to any person (or any human being for that matter). The Constitution states that the federal government and the state governments cannot deprive the life of a person without due process.
And none of the Supreme Court’s interpretations or definitions of due process change this fact.
Supreme Court Justice Scalia, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, clearly stated that the correct reading of the Constitution simply puts the issue of abortion back to the states where each state legislature can then either legalize, restrict in certain circumstances, or ban abortion. Scalia wrote, with Justice Thomas joining, that:
“The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. As the Court acknowledges, ‘where reasonable people disagree, the government can adopt one position or the other.’ ”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833
The idea that the legal recognition of personhood for a fetus would ban abortion stems from a comment made in the Roe v. Wade decision. But there is nothing in constitutional law that supports that view of personhood. And Scalia and Thomas both reject that position.
Only a Supreme Court ruling that overturns Roe v. Wade while also holding that abortion is illegal (by whatever argument five or more justices come up with), or a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that overturns Roe v. Wade while also making abortion illegal (as opposed to a personhood amendment to a state constitution that merely defines every human being as a person), would serve the purpose of banning abortion without the requirement of additional state legislation.
The same principles apply to birth control and in vitro fertilization.
So, no matter how strongly we oppose abortion and every form of birth control and every practice of in vitro fertilization that destroys a human life, a personhood amendment to a state constitution would not outlaw abortion, etc. But that does not prevent any state legislature at any time from simply passing a law that bans abortion, etc., and setting up a challenge to Roe v. Wade. It’s simply a question of timing.
I would rather have an amendment to the constitution. It took an amendment to end slavery! It may just take an amendment to protect the innocent child in the womb who did NOTHING WRONG except be conceived at the wrong time :|
“I would rather have an amendment to the constitution.”
Funny, how you small government/ states rights types want an amendment to control women’s bodies. But seriously, do you actually think that a personhood amendment would carry the requisite number of states?
It is amazing how well all of you know Lila and the work that she does. And you even know what she listens! LOL.
Way to go Lila. You are an excellent pro-life defender. We will not surrender the smallest human beings into the hands of the drug companies who wish to snuff them out. Their little light will not be abandoned to the promoters of darkness.
Paul Pauker, i believe your analysis is partially right. i think a personhood amendment would give the pro-life movement with a huge advantage in overturning Roe. Roe was decided when the preborn were not recognized as legal persons. So even though a Constitutional Amendment may not nullify Roe as sound as it is passed, the Amendment would make overturning Roe substantially easier. In fact, the judges would have to look at the situation entirely differently. I think they would have to proceed from the position that all abortions are illegal due to the inherent right to life of the preborn. In other words, abortion would have to be justified, just like the death penalty requires justification, or as you iimplied, a due process analysis. So although the US Constititution does not provide an unconditional right to life it does provide an inalienable right to life. This means that while abortion may always be around, abortion-on-demand will likely be a thing of the past.
Takeaway – all of the arguments for the “No” side were/are legitimate concerns if the pro-life side doesn’t have a unified answer/response to them.
From a legal perspective I think the issue is moot because I don’t think that a Personhood Amendment will automatically make contraception illegal or even abortion illegal. However, Personhood Amendments will give more legal strength to those who want to make contracpetion illegal by passing new laws, just as it would help make abortion illegal. I would support making abortion and contraception illegal or at least highly regulated. Making abortion illegal is really a two step process. First, one needs a Personhood Amendment. Second, new laws concerning the legality or the illegality of abortion need to be passed. I would advise that governments, after a Personhood Amendment has been passed, simply abandon the old laws on abortion and create new laws.
The scientific arguments impact the legal environment more than the moral environment. Morally, I think that we can both agree that hormonal contraception and abortion are wrong. From a legal perspective, the Courts would need evidence in order to make contraceptives illegal, just like the Court would need (and would have) that abortion harms an innocent life.
I think Catholics need to be educated about the legal perspective on this issue.
Form a moral perspectivey Lila was spot-on, but from a legal perspective not so much. The legal world requires evidence and patience. Eventually the legal world will match morality.
I just want to apologize to Lila for my comment on May 5, 2012 at 12:13 pm .
First, I do not know Lila, so i should not have said anything. Second, I am sure Lila was advised and well informed. Third, and most important, from my outside perspective she has displayed excellent judgment before so there is no reason for me to doubt her judgement on this issue.
I should’ve just stuck to my point about the law requiring evidence and patience. Perhaps the indirect evidence from the medical community about the Pill would be sufficient to cause the Pill to be banned once the Preborn are granted Personhood rights.