Mississippi’s ‘Personhood’ Amendment a Challenge for Moderate Conservatives
Email
Esme E. Deprez/Bloomberg/Getty Images
A citizen-led initiative in Mississippi that would impose the country’s tightest regulations yet on abortion and birth control might create a dilemma for moderate Republicans.
Mississippians will vote on the “personhood” amendment Tuesday that would change the definition of a person to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”
Although seemingly simple and broad in its language, Initiative 26 has long-term implications.
It goes beyond what most anti-abortion politicians and groups advocate, which is to define life at conception and limit abortion only to cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger.
“Since it’s tied to fertilization, it implicates all sorts of other things, like many methods of hormonal birth control, like preventing implantation after fertilization has occurred, or fertility treatments where embryos are at risk,” said Jonathan F. Will, an assistant professor of law and director of the bioethics and health law center at the University of Mississippi School of Law.
Opponents have dubbed the measure a radical move by the right-wing to suppress women’s rights. Even anti-abortion rights groups are concerned that such a far-reaching initiative would hamper their ability to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court, by shifting the discussion to the definition of human life.
For moderate Republicans, the amendment – and the national attention it is receiving – poses a new challenge. Many Republicans on the center-right want to limit abortions but do not want to become bait for groups that say Initiative 26 squashes women’s rights.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has already appeared to do a flip-flop on the issue this week. He said on MSNBC Wednesday that he was concerned by the ambiguous language of the amendment, and the idea it could potentially hamper fertility treatments. But today, Barbour cast an absentee ballot in favor of Initiative 26, with an ambiguous explanation of his own.
“I have some concerns about it,” Barbour said in a statement. “But I think all and all, I believe life begins at conception so I think the right thing to do was to vote for it.”
Other Republicans have found themselves caught in a similar place. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is backing Republican gubernatorial candidate Phil Bryant, who supports the initiative. But Christie – considered by many to be a model of moderate conservatives – has remained mum on the issue. His camp has only said that just because Christies is campaigning for Bryant, it doesn’t mean he also endorses the amendment. But he hasn’t spoken against it either.
The Democratic National Committee took out an ad charging 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney of supporting the “personhood” amendment, the “most extreme attack on a woman’s right to choose in a generation.” But the ad is misleading because Romney has said he would support a constitutional amendment stating that life begins at conception, not fertilization, as the Mississippi measure states. The 2012 candidate hasn’t commented on Initiative 26.
The Mississippi measure has opened up a new chapter in the abortion debate. Anti-abortion groups gained fresh momentum after Republicans won the U.S. House of Representatives, and many state legislatures, by a landslide last year. Many of these groups believe they are getting increasingly closer to taking the issue to the Supreme Court and overturning the controversial Roe v. Wade decision.
But Initiative 26, in many conservatives’ eyes, threatens to split the anti-abortion movement and change the direction of the discussion.
“Even opponents of abortion rights who would like nothing more than to give the courts an opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade may find this amendment a bad vehicle for doing so,” professor Will and Harvard professor I. Glenn Cohen wrote in an op-ed in the New York Times. “Courts frequently read ambiguous language as a strategy to avoid raising serious constitutional questions. By endorsing a ballot initiative that is deeply ambiguous, pro-life constituencies could be inviting courts to read the amendment in a way that sidesteps the very constitutional question they want to force.”
Similar initiatives by Parenthood USA, which is behind Initiative 26, have been unsuccessful. The measure was voted down twice in Colorado, in 2008 and 2010.
Proponents say it’s likely to win in Mississippi but the national attention that has been cast on it has also brought out the opposition and could hamper its success.
Even if it passes, the road to implementation will be long. Will points out that the proposed amendment does not state whether it would be self executing, meaning that the Mississippi law will change once it passes, or whether it needs to be accompanied by legislative action.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Way to go Mississippi. Outlaw abortion AND most of the preferred methods of birth control in one fell swoop! And in just a few short years, you will have the dumbest, poorest, and highest population in the country. Thank god I will never have to go anywhere near that place again………
Posted by: Searambler | November 4, 2011, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
Just what Mississipi needs, even more uneducated poor people that will drain the economy…
Posted by: genhrules | November 4, 2011, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
“Mississippi’s ‘Personhood’ Amendment a Challenge for Moderate Conservatives”
The term ‘Moderate Republican’ has become an oxymoron in this nation……..
Posted by: Searambler | November 4, 2011, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
“And in just a few short years, you will have the dumbest, poorest, and highest population in the country.” Which won’t be saying much compared to the country as a whole. An easy way to create a population of idiots is not to have them think about the consequences of their actions by absolving them of the responsibility for them.
Posted by: Publius | November 4, 2011, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
What else can you expect from the least educated, & most obese state in US?
Posted by: bubba | November 4, 2011, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
So every time I have sex can I claim a dependent on my state tax return
Posted by: Emilio | November 4, 2011, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
No one, should be able to tell a woman she has NO CHOICE on whether to bear an unwanted child, or not.
No one.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | November 4, 2011, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Bubba, your question shows you have zero idea about the meaning of the amendment. Do you know the difference between sperm and a fertilized egg? Review your biology book.
Emilio, I seriously beg to differ. A woman in a difficult situation should make the loving but very difficult choice to carry through with the pregnancy and give up the baby for adoption. I am thankful the birth mother of Steve Jobs made that choice.
Posted by: Sanity | November 4, 2011, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
SANITY: “A woman in a difficult situation should make the loving but very difficult choice to carry through with the pregnancy and give up the baby for adoption. I am thankful the birth mother of Steve Jobs made that choice.” – - – Too bad Hitler’s mother didn’t have an abortion. I think, therefore I am, therefore I am a person. If it cannot be a person outside of the womb it cannot be a person inside the womb. So, if this passes will couples with a dozen fertilized eggs in storage at a fertility clinic be able to claim a dozen children as dependents and all of the storage costs as a child care tax deduction?
Posted by: B-K KnightRider | November 4, 2011, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
If this passes will couples with a dozen fertilized eggs in storage at a fertility clinic have to have those babies? Would destroying the fertilized eggs be against the law??
Posted by: Kat | November 4, 2011, 8:23 pm 8:23 pm
A woman in a difficult situation should make the loving but very difficult choice to carry through with the pregnancy and give up the baby for adoption. Posted by: Sanity | November 4, 2011, 4:46 pm.
Yes, because a teenager raped by her father or her uncle or her brother should make that “loving” decision to carry to term the child of that monster. Or the woman whose health is in jeopardy if she gives birth just needs to suck it up and hope she survives childbirth.
Let’s suppose that every woman decides to make the “loving” decision to have the baby then give it up for adoption. Right now we already have thousands of babies and kids awaiting adoption. Your ‘solution’ is to throw more kids into the mix. Why? Do you really believe that, for example, black babies born in Mississippi are going to be in such huge demand that every one of them will be adopted? Who is responsible for taking care of the babies that DON’T get adopted? Or for that matter, for taking care of the babies between the time they are born and the time they are adopted? Who pays for all of THAT?
It seems to me the anti-choice crowd thinks it is better for a baby to be born into a bad situation (crushing poverty, crime-ridden area, unhealthy environment, single parenthood, etc.), than for the woman to have an abortion. That is their ‘loving’ choice.
And outlawing many forms of birth control with this bill will reduce unwanted pregnancies how?
Posted by: Searambler | November 5, 2011, 9:43 am 9:43 am
If this passes will couples with a dozen fertilized eggs in storage at a fertility clinic have to have those babies? Would destroying the fertilized eggs be against the law?? Posted by: Kat | November 4, 2011, 8:23 pm.
Yes. Destroying fertilized eggs would be considered murder if this passes.
Posted by: Searambler | November 5, 2011, 9:44 am 9:44 am
A woman in a difficult situation should make the loving but very difficult choice to carry through with the pregnancy and give up the baby for adoption. I am thankful the birth mother of Steve Jobs made that choice. Posted by: Sanity | November 4, 2011, 4:46 pm.
This law would remove a woman’s choice in the matter, by making it illegal to have an abortion. I wish a few more women had abortions, i.e. the mothers of Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, Timothy McVeigh, etc……..
Posted by: Searambler | November 5, 2011, 9:49 am 9:49 am
Sanity:
Mississippi uses the same criteria to determine dependency status as the federal government does for income tax purposes. Currently, the federal government does not allow dependency exemptions to be claimed for fertilized eggs. So, the answer to your question appears to be no.
Also, I don’t believe one can take a child care expense deduction, although child care credits can be taken. Since that credit would reduce a federal tax liability, it could not be used here. I do not know about the credits/deductions available in Mississippi for state income tax purposes, however.
Posted by: TGT | November 5, 2011, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
OK for the UNWANTED pregnancy issue. NO SEX NO PREGNANCY. Very simple.
Posted by: Caroline | November 5, 2011, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
Maybe you can explain why even though the eagle is no longer an endangered species, its eggs are still federally protected while they’re still in the mother eagle; once they are laid; through the 35-day incubation period and beyond through hatching. In fact, even the nonliving eagle egg shell is protected by the federal law. We’re talking a $100,000 fine! Shouldn’t a human baby have at least the same protection under the law?
Posted by: Lifeisbeautiful | November 5, 2011, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
Bottom line, the Government or my neighbor does NOT have the right to tell me what to do with my body, that is between me and my maker, It is a moral decision, not some male politician or right wing religious freak. It’s my choice, not yours.
Posted by: Wendy | November 6, 2011, 8:42 am 8:42 am
What part of 7 Billion people on the planet do conservative Christians not get? The planet has a carrying capacity. Your silly religious views will kill us all.
Posted by: John | November 6, 2011, 9:51 am 9:51 am
the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god’s name, in his temple!
the 1984 niv footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what “to thy thigh to rot, thy belly to swell” meant:
Numbers 5:21 Or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness” to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.
the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1)
Evid3nc3
Posted by: gale routh | November 6, 2011, 10:16 am 10:16 am
Caroline, your simplistic views amaze me. Rational, consenting adults SHOULD be able to have sex if they wish. Sex need not result in pregnancy.
Posted by: Sarah | November 6, 2011, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
If life begins at conception then birth certificates should be done away with and replaced with a “Beginning Life” certificate. It’s easy enough for doctors to determine the time of conception, and once determined, a Beginning Life certificate could be issued. One of the obvious ramifications of an aborted life would be that a Death certificate noting the cause of death would be necessary, and the death of a fetus noted on a death certificate could only be natural, accidental, or deliberately human caused, and in the latter case cause of death would be considered murder.
Posted by: Grousefeather | November 7, 2011, 11:56 am 11:56 am
So then corporations cannot be considered persons in Mississippi, right? Since they were never conceived from an egg and a sperm?
Posted by: Granulor | November 7, 2011, 3:36 pm 3:36 pm
Is it really appropriate to refer to proponents of this bill as “anti-abortion?” If the media is going to tout political correctness, I question their usage of the negatively charged term ANTI-abortion instead of the more PC “pro-life”. Just as I wouldn’t expect a mainstream media source to refer to pro-choice activists as pro-DEATH, I find it highly questionable that ABC would use such a clearly unfavorable term in this non-editorial forum.
Posted by: Harvard JD | November 7, 2011, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Surely you people realize the only thing that will happen if abortiion is no longer legal is the fact that we will have more criminals who get abortions done by back street “doctors” or hedge doctors. Nothing will change, back in the 50′s when abortion was illegal it still happened. Same thing happened when prohibition was in affect, people still drank. Samething is happening today with illicit drugs, people still do them, the problem with making anything illegal is the cost to the AMERICAN TAX PAYER of enforcing these idiotic laws.
Abortion is simply a WOMENS right. I think, however, that if the woman chooses to have the child the man involved should be allowed to state that he wants termination and not have to pay child support just because a women chooses to keep a child that neither of them were ready to have.
This would stop those women who entrap men, and it does happen, by getting pregnant.
There are way to numerous problems with this country to simply change a few laws and fix everything, the first thing that needs to be altered is the Tax code, after that everything is easy.
10% flat tax on EVERYONE and all companies without any deductions and no loopholes. That would remove our deficit in under 10 years and EVERYONE who pays taxes now would pay less. Those people who make under the poverty line should not be taxed.
Posted by: ReallyJustReally | November 8, 2011, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
Ah yes, good ole Mississippi. This amendment didn’t fly in Colorado (twice), so where do they take it? To one of the most pro-life states, not to mention least intelligent, in the US. No one will read what this actually entails. They just stop at “save the innocent babies”. You know it seems like such a great idea to consider it a “person” while it’s still floating around the fallopian tubes….before it even implants.
Man, I certainly hope (if this ridiculous amendment passes) that they don’t go after women who have miscarriages. If you really want to save innocent “babies” (I say it like that because, let’s face it, we are not in agreement on WHEN it’s a “baby”), this is NOT the way to do it. Dumb dumbs.
Posted by: Danielle | November 8, 2011, 4:20 pm 4:20 pm
what happened to land of the free. if these people had thier way we would all dress the same and walk in perfect harmony and if not we would go to the overcrowded prisons and serve more time than the real criminals. get this government out our lives. they are not the ones who have to live with this decision. but this is just another way for them to justify spending more of our money on a useless law
Posted by: scott | November 8, 2011, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
This will be deemed unconstitutional should it be voted through. FEDERAL law allows abortion along with “women’s rights” and STATES can NOT counter federal law.
Posted by: NetScanr | November 8, 2011, 7:53 pm 7:53 pm