Home > abortion, politics, Right To LIfe > Is Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment All That “Extreme”? Of Course Not, But…

Is Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment All That “Extreme”? Of Course Not, But…

That all depends on which side of the debate you are on.  If you are pro-life, this proposed amendment is just what you have been fighting for ever since Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in 1973.  If you are pro-abortion, any bill that limits access to, or funding for, abortion, from your point of view, is “extreme”.  In Mississippi, where it is expected this initiative will pass in a state that is perhaps the most religiously conservative state in America, this Personhood Amendment is “extreme”ly welcome to its citizens and long over due.

And it begs the question:  What is so “extreme” about protecting life from being maliciously, unnecessarily destroyed?

November 8 is the “due” date for when Mississippians will go to the polls to “deliver” unto its state their decision – whether they believe in “giving birth to” Proposition 26 – the Personhood Amendment as it is also known – and whether they want the state government of Mississippi to accept and enforce the position that life begins at conception (fertilization), therefore, and thereby, protecting all unborn children, including those in the embryonic state, from being destroyed, tampered with and manipulated for scientific purposes and aborted on demand.  Will the Personhood Amendment be “given life”, or “aborted” in the “womb” of Mississippi polling centers?

All the pro abortion groups, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc., are out in force to help defeat it.  HuffPost, NPR, The NY Times, MSNBC, and other liberal news outlets are also lending a hand in helping to defeat the measure.  And should it pass, the ACLU will be there to file the predictable lawsuit to have it declared unconstitutional, which may be just what the propositions sponsors and backers hope will happen.  What exactly does the text of the proposed amendment say that has these groups up in arms and worried?

The text is as followed.

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi:

SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE
Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’
or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the
functional equivalent thereof.”
This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation

It certainly is an “extreme”ly important piece of legislation that will have “extreme”ly consequential and sweeping ramifications for the rest of the country should it pass. And while it would ban abortion in the case of rape and incest (most incest by the way is also rape) there is nothing in the language of the text to indicate whether it would outlaw abortion even to save the mother’s life, a very contentious issue which even the vast majority within pro-life movement oppose.  However, in Mississippi, where many of its Democrats are pro-life, it is hard to imagine, without substantiated proof, that even they would oppose abortion if the mother’s life was legitimately at risk.

It means very simply that the state of Mississippi legally acknowledges life begins at conception (fertilization); that the state of Mississippi will be legally bound to define life as that which begins at conception; that Mississippi can legally prohibit abortion once conception takes place, and legally prohibit the use of pills or medication to remove this life within a woman’s womb.  Science, by the way, has long ago proven that life does begin at conception.  Unfortunately the evidence was not in existence back in the days of Roe vs. Wade.  If it was known then, and shown in court, Roe vs. Wade would have been rejected and over 50 million lives would not have been destroyed.  And even now, with the evidence for life beginning at conception, because it’s been nearly forty years since Roe vs. Wade, millions of people are satisfied that abortion is settled law and untouchable.

That has never set well the the many millions of Americans who have never held the view that Roe vs. Wade is “settled” law.

What Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment does is to upset, to unsettle the legal establishment by showing that even so called “settled law” is not set in stone; that the U.S. Constitution does in fact, not allow for a woman to indiscriminately, unnecessarily kill her unborn child “on demand”.  That’s not even what Roe vs. Wade allowed for.  However, because the 1973 ruling was so ambiguous, it opened up the door for abortion rights activists to insert whatever other legal protections for abortion they wanted.  And because the courts themselves have become so much more liberal, abortion rights groups have had these laws upheld.

Roe vs. Wade was never intended to allow for abortion “on demand”, simply because a woman felt she did not want to go through the pregnancy, whether she was emotionally or psychologically unprepared to give birth.  Roe vs. Wade was never intended to allow for abortion because a woman was too poor, or too young.  Roe vs. Wade was never intended to allow for “partial birth abortion” or any late term abortion.  But the law has been so corrupted over the decades by those in the pro abortion movement, like Planned Parenthood, it has come to mean, and to be interpreted to mean, anything a woman wants it to mean.

Roe vs. Wade was originally intended to allow a woman who had been raped the “right to privacy” to end the pregnancy the court’s majority believed at the time existed, if not in the ninth or fourteenth amendment to the constitution, then under its “due process clause”.  However, there were those in the court concerned that if the evidence to show that life began at conception ever did come to light, then this new law allowing abortion would be, and should be, overturned.

That is what the sponsors of Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment are banking on.  That because the evidence does exist for life beginning at conception (fertilization) the passage of this amendment, even if challenged in court (which it will be) it cannot be overturned.

Whether it passes or not, the fight will go on.  The only way to definitively end this fight is to change the minds and hearts of Americans.

The question, then, is  – Can we in the pro-life movement change enough hearts and minds in America to our side in time, before the pro-abortion movement can sway a majority of people to their side?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

Please log in to WordPress.com to post a comment to your blog.

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.