Mississippi governor demands abortion front group stop deceptive robo-calls about personhood initiative
They deceived from the moment of their conception, pardon the pun, by stating they were Mississippians for Healthy Families. In actuality two of the group’s three organizing officers were CEOs of Planned Parenthoods in other states, and the third was the executive director of ACLU of Mississippi, certainly not family-oriented.
Since then the lies they’ve told about Initiative 26, Mississippi’s personhood amendment. have been too numerous to recount.
But today the group got about as close to incurring a “cease and desist” order as it could possibly get, from none other than Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.
Barbour demanded they stop making robo-calls to voters insinuating Barbour opposes Initiative 26. Listen to the call here. Here’s Barbour’s public statement. I only wish he would have named the group…
By all accounts the measure may pass, which would be an amazing victory. But the other side is pulling out all stops to sink it. They realize the ramifications are enormous.
I see Gov. Barbour just tweeted on this, too. Good for him.
[HT: Keith Mason of Personhood USA; photos at top of post (click to enlarge) of Mississippians for Healthy Family officers, are: Kay Scott, CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast, pictured with Jane Fonda’s pretty awful face-lift; Barry Chase, CEO of Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region; and Nsombi Lambright, Executive Director of ACLU of Mississippi. There are no Planned Parenthoods in Mississippi, btw.]
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.
“They realize the ramifications are enormous.” – we certainly do. It’s just a pity that you don’t seem to.
Contraception? What are you thinking?
Nicotine addict? Guess what.
Pizza, fries and soda, throw that lot out.
Glass of wine with dinner now and then? Don’t you dare.
Watch out, here come the gestation police.
Get real, Reality!
Jon – What, in the language of the bill, makes you so quick to dismiss Reality’s claims?
And yet the fearmongering continues. What’ll happen if the amendment passes and none of the stuff pro-choicers said would happen, happens? Will they admit they’re wrong?
Will women be required to undertake testing to ensure that they’re not taking blackmarket contraceptive pills or using blackmarket IUD’s? After all, if a fertilized egg is a ‘person’ and these things can cause harm to a fertilized egg then they must be illegal.
I might head off and prepare a few cosy spots under the bridge for expectant ladies who may wish to partake of the odd pizza or glass of wine.
Planned Parenthood threw millions into South Dakota over our abortion bans and called themselves “Healthy Families” here. That’s where that garbage started. They lied and deceived and obfuscated and twisted to protect their genocidal ways. We did not have anyone with the authority of Gov. Barbour to stand up for the preborns here and demand the lying liars stop.
The climate is changing and the veil hiding the abortion industry’s gross misdeeds has been rent. Gosnell. Protecting sex traffickers of underaged girls. Protecting rapists. Hiding incest. We know the abortion industry does all this and even more heinous acts, and it is being brought into the open by courageous and heroic Americans dedicated to truth and protecting “the least of these.”
The tide is turning. It’s time to pray it through.
I wish that idiot traitor Jane Fonda would just vaporize.
Common sense, Ex-GOP. Aren’t born children already considered persons? Has their personhood led to such illogical restrictions as Reality has envisioned?
True contraception doesn’t kill any human being.
Eating pizza and fries and drinking soda and wine do not directly kill anyone, not even the eater or drinker herself. They’re not committing murder. Getting an abortion is premeditated murder.
Even nicotine addicts don’t ingest nicotine so as to kill their babies.
Jon -
If you took a newborn baby and gave them alcohol, what would happen to you?
So what if a woman found out she was pregnant a couple of nights after heavy drinking, and then miscarried. Even if she didn’t miscarry – if a person is a person is a person, then shouldn’t she be charged with something?
“And yet the fearmongering continues. What’ll happen if the amendment passes and none of the stuff pro-choicers said would happen, happens? Will they admit they’re wrong?”
Just what will happen if the amendment passes, then?
Jon – my bigger question is in regards to life insurance – will a person automatically be able to get life insurance on a newly conceived, pre-born baby, and then get payment if there is a miscarriage?
If it does pass, it gets put on hold until it gets to the supreme court, and then it either strengthens r v wade, or destroys it. One of the two.
Speaking of new restrictions, Ex-GOP, didn’t you claim that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to forcibly redistribute wealth? You didn’t use those words, but you claimed that since, apparently, poor people are more likely to get abortions, the civil government should do more to help them out. If the civil government does so, it of course increases taxes and essentially transfers money from the producers to the consumers. Now that’s a big restriction on tax-payer money and therefore also on their time (and their lives).
I believe that the purpose of the civil government is to protect its citizens and punish evil-doers. While it should prevent the exploitation of the poor, it should not attempt to guarantee their survival. That’s not its job. I believe that I have a Biblical understanding of the purpose of the civil government. With this understanding, of course I favour legislation to prevent premeditated murder, which voluntary (forced) abortion generally is.
No Jon – I don’t believe that the government should forcibly redistribute wealth.
Ex-GOP, you asked, “My bigger question is in regards to life insurance – will a person automatically be able to get life insurance on a newly conceived, pre-born baby, and then get payment if there is a miscarriage?”
I don’t know much about life insurance. Maybe that’s a good question. Can a person already get life insurance on a newly born baby and then get payment for SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)?
Jon –
Yes. When my newest was born, I was able to put them on my life insurance plan right away.
According to the Bible, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and the protection of the human fetus. When people fear God, as America used to fear Him, then they will respect those who were made like Him. Adam was a son of God to a greater extent than any of the angels ever were. To do violence to any of God’s children is an attack on God Himself. God has given to the civil government the job of preventing and punishing such violence.
Personhood at conception would necessitate a new class, something along the lines of “person prepartum.” There would not likely be a separate life insurance for the preborn human, but there may be a rider on a woman’s life insurance that pays a death benefit for any preborn person she was carrying at the time of her death.
Think outside the box, people. That’s how we advance.
“Personhood at conception” has been around since the beginning of time. It has only been the last 30 or 40 years that our society has been brainwashed into thinking that there is no baby at the beginning of life (conception) and perhaps not even until the baby actually draws its first breath…if it is fortunate enough to do so.
There are many reasons why an insurance company would insure a baby within a mother’s womb – they already insure the mother. If they were to insure the baby, they would charge a premium and if the parent wanted to pay the premium, it would be their choice. The insurance company would do well in their numbers game – for most pregnancies are not high risk.
A baby is a baby no matter how small …
These are all very good questions. I am sure that as we evolve as a society and no longer view the killing of one own’s child as an acceptable solution to a problem. we will be able to “think outside the box” (re Amy1) and develop good law.
After all, I am sure there were questions about what we were going to do with Blacks once Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation: how do we treat them once they’re considered real people? How do we protect them even when there are some people in America who refuse to see them as real people? How do we get slaveowners to live and prosper in a new society?
All of this took time and there was no doubt struggle. But it was worth it. We are a better country for having made Blacks full persons under the law. And we will be a better country once we make the unborn full persons.
EX-GOP, I don’t really get your objections to the personhood of the unborn based on legal issues and insurance matters. Bottom line, a burger and fries are legal. Smoking is legal for adults as is alcohol. I know of no regulation that forbids greasy food, tabacco or alcohol for pregnant women. Now if a pregnant woman were to drink heavily with the intent to kill her unborn child that would be another thing. As stated earlier in the comments, our laws would evolve to handle these situations. And insurance?? What’s up with that? I have worked in the health insurance field most of my adult life. If the unborn are recognized as persons, yes then there might be some premium increase. And there would be a period of adjustment where physicians figured out how to bill for services for the unborn person vs. services for the mother. And of course the insurer would have to adjudicate claims differently. But honestly, no big deal once coding was agreed upon. Same with life insurance. And as stated earlier, all insurance is a choice. You can insure or not. I read your comments as it is better to kill the unborn than to face a possible premium increase or deductible. If that is your meaning then I really don’t know what to say. I think that I might be speechless.
Sharon – Nope – I’m not saying that at all – I’m asking honest questions that I wonder what the result of this passed amendment would be. And I wonder if the vagueness of this would doom it if it headed to the Supreme Court. I just don’t know. I mean, if a woman got pregnant right before filing for divorce, could he bring her to court for visitation? If a woman finds out she’s a couple of weeks pregnant on December 31st, does the family get an extra tax deduction? If a woman miscarries, should the police get involved to see if charges should be brought? If a woman is drinking while pregnant, should she get arrested? If she’s continuing to drink, could a father get a court order to have her deliver early so that the baby was taken out of her custody?
I’d like abortion to go away – but I just wonder if passing a law like this could be a huge legal blow to overturning RvWade (if the supremes shot it down and ruled essentially that personhood does not exist until birth, or closer to birth)- I’ve seen folks speculate on that, but haven’t read enough on the thoughts surrounding it.
I love how those who are hell-bent on the “right” to kill preborn persons are so hot to call us defenders “draconian,” when they continually demonstrate their inability to evolve past early 1970’s medical knowledge, law and awareness of the beginnings of life.
Keep defending that “blob of tissue” meme, pro-deathers.
PP and the pro-aborts are playing the only ace left in their hand: lies. We are accustomed to that. They have lots of money (where do they get it?) and money equals muscle when it comes to disseminating propaganda.
When this finally passes then we will see what happens next. Obviously the courts will be involved, possibly ending at SCOTUS. It is impossible to predict the ultimate outcome.
“The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.” Find answers to most of the questions about Personhood at: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/about-personhood.html
Since an IUD is merely a personal abortion device, yes, I hope laws like this make IUD’s unusable and illegal. YES!!! Women in America have been rendered infertile by these so-called safe devices. They are not safe. In fact, the worst models were never outlawed, they were just sold to women in other countries. No one in the baby killing business really cares about women, born or pre-born. Abortion advocates don’t care about women.