On November 8, Mississippi voters will decide on a constitutional amendment that would grant personhood to every fertilized egg. As we've been reporting on the show, Initiative 26 would outlaw abortion along with popular kinds of birth control and likely fertility treatments, too.
Without money for much more, the pro-choice side has relied on homemade signs and videos. Now, the last and only clinic that provides abortion in all of Mississippi has managed to buy some billboards -- one funny-scary, one scary-scary. The Jackson Women's Health Organization sends these pictures of the ads they bought "with the support and funds of people across Mississippi, the country and even the world." They've got eight billboards now, from Biloxi on the coast to Oxford, home of Ole Miss, and three more on the way next week.
(How to send us pictures and stuff from where you live.)
Leave a Comment:
unbelievable that this can happen in the USA in 2011-I can't even imagine this scenario. I hope that more women of this country wake up & start fighting-there are people who are trying to return women & the treatment of women to the stone ages. This is a very serious situation. It cannot be shrugged off, people need to keep our society moving forward.
BUT, if every egg is a person, does that mean that there is a moral and legal obligation to sustain life?
If so, every single month, a married republican man has committed murder by not impregnating his wife, due to involuntary manslaughter??
Involuntary Manslaughter - Usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence.
Criminal Negligence - The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.
....just sayin'.
Finally!!
Proof that the GOP wants to get in your pants.
Who in the GOP is in charge of the SPERM POLICE? why do the same laws and regulations not apply to Men? "Do not spill thy seed on the ground". If we are gonna use the Bible to write law....who will enforce the "No Masturbation Law"?
Monty Python dealt with this issue a long time ago, but guess we need to revist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
"Every Sperm is Sacred."
Haddie Nuff: You beat me to that one. (Damn you)!!
Just a thought, what if Lincoln let the Confederacy stay seceded from the Union. Would the South be more backward then it is?
one way to fight is to give, so the no on 26 side can run commercials like the pro side does 24-7, ( of course they raise dollars in tax sheltered churches across the state every week!)
In 2 weeks my state will vote on this initiative, it has a better chance of becoming law here than in the other 20 states it has been tried in. This is a complicated law proposal that has many legal problems - not simply pro-life vs. pro-choice. If it succeeds here it will affect all other states. This is one of two local legitimate organizations trying to stop this legislation. PLEASE GIVE TO SUPPORT THESE ORGANIZATIONS this is going out to all my facebook friends no matter where you live. Please share this if you agree. If you don't educate yourself about the real ramifications of this law!
https://votenoon26.ngpvanhost.com/crmapi/contribute
There must be something we can do about those tea party people.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/20/348168/tea-party-group-businesses-hurt-obama/
Keep abortion legal?
I always find it so disturbing that in the push to apply 'personhood' and rights to a miniscule amount of cells, the rights and autonomy of women are trampled with a misogynystic glee. I'll believe its about the 'children' when Right-to-Lifers put the time and energy they already expend into solving some of the problems that necessatate abortion as a viable option. Where is all the financial, housing, schooling, medical, transportation, employment and emotional support and help so needed in many of these cases?
If corporation are people too, then doesn't this mean that Mississippi is also prohibiting judges from declaring any business to be bankrupt?
This measure proves that while everyone has been terrified by the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalists, the true threat to this country - the radical Christian fundamentalists - are imploding our society from within.
So true.
Ooohhhh, a vote! How scary! Those tricky Christians are just like those radical Muslims!
I'm not too concerned with this. These campaigns are not designed to change laws, but instead to play to the republican base, and it's beliefs.
Even if something like this was passed, my bet is that it would be deemed unconstitutional and overturned. Unfortunately our system doesn't require a constitutional ruling before something gets put on a ballet. Our system is reactionary instead.
Exactly correct. Mississippi cannot do by a state law or state constitution anything that abrogates federal constitutional rights. The law is unconstitutional and any federal will enjoin the enforcement.
These types of asinine votes have only ONE real purpose -- to get REPUBLICANS to the polls on election day. They already know that even if it passes it will be struck down by the court, but it gives them a diversion until that happens. They don't have to worry about unemployment, education, or poverty -- you know, REAL problems facing real LIVE humans. And, they don't have to discuss this huge HOLE that GEORGE W.BUSH got us in.
The attempts to divert attention are not working in many places. OWS has taken over the news and the political stage to grab the attention of the middle class and poor. And its working.
@Groove Marketers - "Not too concerned", eh? You must not have a uterus. Would you mind maybe being concerned on behalf of all the people in you life that DO? Already, in this county, THIS year, there has been more anti-choice legislation passed in this county than since Roe V. Wade was enacted. Laws ARE being changed!!! So eother get concerned now or wait 'till laws put your reproductive organs on the chopping block - your choice - and yeah, I said CHOICE!
I have never understood how you can legislate abortion. It is and should be a painful and difficult and very personal decision. There is no absolute right or wrong. I believe that all life has great value and significance but do I think I have the right to decide for a rape victim or a victim of incest what they should do. Nobody has that right. If these people feel so strongly against abortion then where are they when some young girl is facing these difficult and painful decisions. Are they offering her help or are they too busy trashing clinics and murdering doctors and forcing their opinions on others. If they truly wish to see all life honored then they should address the issues that cause a woman to have to consider an abortion. Resolve the social and economic causes and then abortion will cease to be a big issue.
In my mind, it doesn't matter if your pro choice or pro life. It doesn't matter if you personally believe that a fetus is a person. I've come to agree with the pro lifers that both the fetus and the woman do have a right to life. And with the Mississippi amendment on the horizon, "pro choicers" are going to need a new argument:
The fact is (one that I'm amazed I've never heard before) is that it's already illegal to force a person (born or unborn) to give their body to someone else (born or unborn, person or non person) so it may survive. This is already illegal. It's just never been applied to this argument before.
No one, born or unborn, has a right to another person's body without their approval. Removing a fetus and allowing it to die on the table is different from removing it and stabbing it in the heart. The fact that a fetus, depending on its stage of development, may not survive without the woman is no more relevant than the fact that a child may die without a parent's kidney. No parent is required by law to give their child a kidney.
This post is really unclear. Why should the argument you offer mean that prochoicers need a new argument? I'm also not sure where the idea comes from that anti-choicers believe that women have a right to life; many clearly do not!
This argument's been widely used, btw. You can't force someone to donate an organ to protect someone else's life, not even in a parent/child relationship. Likewise, you can't force a woman to serve as an incubator for 40 weeks against her will to protect the alleged right to life of a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus, not until very late in the pregnancy. That sounds like the argument you're making -- yet you say you've come to agree with "prolifers."
Obviously, I wasn't clear enough. I believe that a fetus does have a right to life. That's the only part that corresponds with pro lifers. However, women have a right to life as well. And if the abortion argument were to be on a criminal level - the right to life - as opposed to Roe v. Wade - the right to privacy - it would be a different argument. I am presenting this different argument.
I am unaware of anyone citing civil liberties as an argument for abortion. I've never heard anyone use the comparison to kidneys. All I hear (and all I've ever said before) is "my body, my choice". The term "my choice" does not imply your "right". Whereas actual civil liberties can be applied here. And I don't think they have been up until now. And I think they should be.
Btw, the reason for a new argument is if embryos become people. The "privacy" argument isn't going to cut it anymore. And it doesn't matter if pro lifers believe women have a right to life. It's a civil liberty. No court in the land is going to say that women, even pregnant women, no longer have a right to life.
"Megan
The fact is (one that I'm amazed I've never heard before) is that it's already illegal to force a person (born or unborn) to give their body to someone else (born or unborn, person or non person) so it may survive. This is already illegal. It's just never been applied to this argument before."
That is incorrect. The whole basis for Roe v. Wade is based on that argument. The SCOTUS ruled that the state has no interest in the first trimester and some interest in the second and third trimester. If at any time a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, she can terminate. The pro-lifers do not like the idea that the danger can be to the woman's mental health at any time and therefor, justify a termination.
The hard core lifers and Catholics who follow the church's teachings believe that the child's life is more important than the woman's. Hence, they will make doctors save the life of the child over the woman. That means that the government has taken away the woman and the doctors choice. This is not the current state of the law and that is why there is a push for a constitutional amendment. The pro lifers do not want to rely on a SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I don't think the SCOTUS wants to do that because of the potential political fallout that would occur if Roe is overturned.
I don't know about that - granted, I don't know all about Roe .v Wade (I never heard "civil liberties", I heard "doctor-patient confidentiality".), but I've always heard it was the person and privacy argument. And I've been doing a lot of reading over the last year.
I can't believe that the SCOTUS' ruling was based on the thought that women must be forced to give their body over to the fetus after a certain amount of time and be forced to give up their own civil liberties. While that is accurate of their ruling, I don't think that's a wording of the outcome that they ever intended. And I think it should start being phrased that way.
The defense needs to be rephrased from "my body, my choice" to something more like "Forcing a woman to give her body to someone else against her will is tantamount to slavery." A woman should, under no circumstances, lose any of her civil liberties just for getting pregnant.
This is Canada - "The court noted that "[f]orcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations" and that the law "asserts that the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state" were essentially a breach of the woman's right to security of the person, which is guaranteed under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
They actually state it. While a woman's civil liberties may be in our daily arguments in spirit, I'm not seeing it in print. It needs to become the default argument, as opposed to "my choice".
Can you imagine a republican candidate for president being asked, "Why do believe that women should give up their civil liberties when they get pregnant?" instead of asking them why they are pro-life. The focus isn't fetuses, it's women. I'd LOVE to see any one of them answer that question. Except Santorum who'd rather no one has any rights.
The basis for Roe was a constitutional right to privacy which what you are arguing. However, the SCOTUS stated that the states can impose restrictions in the second and third trimester. The states cannot prohibit all abortions and when the mother's health is in danger, regardless of the trimester, she may have an abortion. The second and third trimesters where these restrictions are being fought out. States are imposing restrictions that circumvent the ruling and outlaw abortions via the restrictions. Those restrictions are the battleground, but a woman can have an abortion for any reason in the first trimester. After that there are state restrictions, but the woman can still have an abortion. It is the third trimester that states are prohibiting all abortions except for rape, incest, and health reasons.
Granted I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I'm not arguing a right to privacy. I'm arguing a right to life for the woman. When you go to court because you defended yourself against a man who attacked you, you're not arguing a right to privacy. You're arguing a right to life. A right to self-defense. The right to defend yourself against something else.
What I'm saying is, because the state imposes restrictions at all, the state is infringing on a woman's civil liberties, specifically, the right to life. I never hear that. I never hear, "my civil liberties", I consistently hear, "my body my choice". Which, as I said earlier may have the spirit of civil liberties included, but it doesn't implicitly say that.
Has the ACLU (civil rights gurus) ever taken abortion on? It seems to me, they should step into this arena!
Where are the lawsuits claiming civil liberty infractions?! We need a pregnant woman to go to court with the ACLU by their side with this claim.
Reminds me of the Monty Python song "Every little sperm is sacred." Which I suppose is next...
This makes masturbation illegal. Coming soon to a ballot near you. (No pun intended.)
Eggs are not people and neither are sperm! I'm beginning to think half our politicians are not either!
Isn't funny but also very sad how the Republican Party's concern for children ends at the moment of birth?
indeed.
I wonder how long before they outlaw masturbation in Mississippi.
It is outlawed. Sex toys (vibrators, dildos etc) are outlawed in MS.
And women, it won't be enough just to vote. You must tell the men in your life what this measure will mean for them. If this measure passes, how will women prevent conception? The oldest way: stop having sex, even if married.
If there's a man in your life, tell him that if this measure passes, he's cut off. If these bastards want to use politics to control sex, it's only fair for women to use sex as a political tool
And I suspect that if women DO say this to the men in their lives, they will quickly learn a great deal about their men.
I'd like to think we can do it more gently than this, without going all Lysistrata on the men we love. Hopefully our mates see eye-to-eye with us on this issue. If not, they should probably be kicked to the curb anyway....Edit: Steve, your second comment nails it precisely. If your mate doesn't care enough about you to join the fight, that does say a lot.
Calling an egg a person is like calling an acorn a tree. But I guess the pro-lifers don't see the logic there.
They don't operate on logic. They operate on dogma. They are destroying this country. I am at a loss dealing with these people.
So what are they going to do with the fertility banks that dispose of thousands of fertilized eggs? Charge them with murder?
Will the eggs be taxed?
I'll believe in those that screech about the "Right to LIFE" when:
1) they start supporting the lives of children already here that are in the adoption/foster care system!
2) they start supporting those already alive and hungry because they don't get to eat - either because they are too poor or their parents have NO JOB!
3) they start supporting policies such as "Medicare for all, higher minimum wages, infrastructure spending", et.al!
4) when they actually "DO FOR THE LEAST OF THOSE AMONGST YOU"!!!
See, I too believe in "LIFE", and frankly the LIVES of the PEOPLE ALREADY HERE ARE THE LIVES THAT CONCERN ME THE MOST!!!
HYPOCRISY THOU ART THE GOP!!!
Zora, your statement is so well-written! You're really good at that. And you're so right! Mind if I quote you?
Thank you, and go ahead... :>)
Scenario:
1. Republicans amend the constitution to say fertilized eggs are people.
2. The following year, many people claim extra dependents on their income taxes, arguing that the fertilized eggs that died during the past tax year are people, and should count as dependents.
3. Republicans, in a show of political outrage, change the tax code to remove exemptions for dependents.
Could this be their strategy all along? Are they that Machiavellian? Or is this just reductio ad absurdum?
Omg, that is brilliant! Does the IRS specify that a dependent must be born?? We could totally do this!
Can you say turkey baster and liquid nitrogen?
Wow.
Deductions for 80 "children".
Who could see that one coming?
IRS dependency criteria -> related to you and under 19 <- we have a winner!!
Score! No mention of birthed or not!
After all, if they can use non-existent voter fraud to strip people of their right to vote, they'll certainly use tax fraud, real or imagined, to effectively raise taxes on the poor and middle class.
Proof positive: The people who want to overturn Roe vs Wade also want to ban all form of contraception.
I wonder where the money from the manufacturers of contraceptives is.
That is an excellent question!
O for a Lysistrata "strike" to educate males who are determined to war against every woman's fundamental right to control her own body!
The worst place this could happen in the U.S. would be Mississippi.
If every fertilized egg is a person, then nature and/or god commits mass murder every day -- about half get discarded without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. I'm reminded of a conversation with my evangelical ex-wife when one of her evangelical church-mates lost a baby. I play the part of the smart ass. "Why are you guys praying for her? She aborted her baby." "No she didn't, she had a miscarriage." "Yeah, a spontaneous abortion. Her body aborted her fetus. She's an abortionist." "No she's not, it's natural." "Obviously she either did something wrong or god is punishing her, so you guys should kick her out of the church." "What? No!" "And the doctors gave her a D&C. I thought you guys preached that the D&C was evil." "Just shut up. It's not that way. She's a christian." "Hmmm ... I guess everything depends on which group you belong to." "Just shut up."
if corporations are people. and life begins at conception
does that mean, that if you conceive of a business, but fail to incorporate, are you committing an abortion ??
This is living proof that prejudice sucks the brains right out of your skull.
A woman with an ectopic pregnancy will die without surgery to remove the "living" embryo which could not possibly grow to produce a viable child no mater what. If the woman is lucky, she will loose one fallopian tube. In the worst case scenario, an emergency hysterectomy will be needed to preserve the life of the mother.
The same kind of thing can happen with Rh blood factor.
This kind of horrible death does not bother people that think they are on a mission from god.
Prohibition legislation condemns every women to death by blood loss any time pregnancy goes seriously wrong.
Pregnancy goes seriously wrong about 10% of the time.
Prohibition of any type tends to produce unintended outcomes, which makes prohibition a bad idea.
The correct solution is to provide social support for uneducated unwed mothers, but the God Squad is slowly passing laws against this.
What the crap is going on in America, anymore!? Is there a rift in the time-space continuum?? Am I in the 50's? Anyone?? (YIKES!!)
It's not you boo, it's G-d sucking the "living brain" from his savants......
Can you imagine a republican candidate for president being asked, "Why do believe that women should give up their civil liberties when they get pregnant?" instead of asking them why they are pro-life. The focus isn't fetuses, it's women. I'd LOVE to see any one of them answer that question. Except Santorum who'd rather no one has any rights.