Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 13, 2017, 03:09:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supporters of 'Personhood Amendment' Make Case to Mississippi Voters  (Read 28455 times)
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2011, 03:54:07 PM »

agreed which is why i said I would be ok with a clause in exceptions of rape...what part of that did you not understand?

fact of the matter is though if you want to complain about a woman being forced to take care of a child you should be equally upset about a man being forced to take care of a child...pretty logical if you ask me...

there is no exclusion for anything in this ammendment

that is the purpose of this ammendment and the mindset of the people who support it

for example

I agree life begins at conception.  That's the logical starting point, rather than some arbitrary "viability" line, etc.  I think people who have been involved with the pregnancy and the birth of a child (male or female) is more likely to understand and appreciate that there is actually a life in the womb (whether the law recognizes it or not). 

In terms of the rape and incest exceptions, I don't think there can be a logical distinction between aborting a baby conceived through consensual sex and aborting one conceived through rape.  It's still an innocent child.  So, if a state is going to ban it, a rape/incest exception isn't reasonable IMO. 

I view the mother's life and health differently, because then you have competing interests (mother vs. baby).  Not saying this should happen, just following the argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.   

In any event, I've said this many times before, but I don't think there is a political solution to this issue, short of a "personhood amendment," and even then it probably will never be settled.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2011, 12:05:10 PM »

so we know fundies are against abortion even in the case of rape or incest and it appears that couldn't give less of a shit of about the resulting trauma to the woman forced to give birth to their rapists child.   Here are some other consequences they probably don't give a shit about either.

The bottom line - if this passes then fundies will have successfully required everyone in the state to follow their religious beliefs and they could give a rats ass about the consequences to the actual fully formed human beings which it will effect

http://www.fertilityauthority.com/articles/chilling-effect-mississippis-personhood-amendment

Quote
The Effect on Infertility Patients

IVF necessitates that multiple eggs are fertilized in a lab to increase the likelihood of pregnancy. The fertilized eggs develop for three to five days, and then one or more are transferred to the woman’s uterus with the hope that one will implant and develop into a successful pregnancy and birth. However, there are often extra fertilized eggs remaining after a couple becomes pregnant. Many infertile couples require more than one attempt at implantation before a pregnancy occurs; many experience miscarriages; and many infertile couples plan on having additional children. The fertilized embryos that remain are often frozen (cryopreserved).

Passage of a Personhood Amendment would call into question many of these fertility treatments. If embryos are full humans, anything that puts an embryo at risk could be a criminal violation. For example, If embryos from an IVF cycle do not develop normally in the lab or do not result in a live birth after embryo transfer, could the fertility doctor or lab be criminally liable? Will patients be prohibited from donating frozen embryos to research? Will laws like this take away a person's rights of disposition over their embryos? Would non-IVF treatments such as artificial insemination be threatened because they carry the risk of miscarriage, and would a woman who suffers a miscarriage be subject to criminal charges? Who will have legal responsibility for fertilized eggs created during fertility treatment but not transferred to a woman's uterus?

As a guest columnist in the Mississippi's Clarion Ledger, Rims Barber, director of the Mississippi Human Services Agenda wrote:

Since more than one egg is harvested and fertilized to achieve a successful IVF pregnancy, making all the embryos "people" under Mississippi law will make it difficult if not impossible to continue offering IVF treatment in our state ...

Moreover, IVF is not the only medical treatment that could be prevented by passage of the Personhood Amendment. Effective treatment of tubal pregnancies, severe preeclampsia, and molar gestation could be prevented.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2011, 01:03:36 PM »

more pesky details



Mississippi’s Ambiguous ‘Personhood’ Amendment

By I. GLENN COHEN and JONATHAN F. WILL

ON Nov. 8, Mississippi voters will be asked to decide on a proposed amendment to the state constitution, which would define as a person “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”

Most of the debate on this proposal has fallen on traditional lines. In our charged political climate, that is understandable, but it is also profoundly misleading. Whether one supports abortion rights or not, there are serious issues with this amendment — not because of the principles it seeks to represent, but because, as a legal matter, it is profoundly ambiguous.

First, what does “fertilization” mean? As embryologists recognize, fertilization is a process, a continuum, rather than a fixed point. The term “fertilization” — which is sometimes considered synonymous with “conception” — could mean at least four different things: penetration of the egg by a sperm, assembly of the new embryonic genome, successful activation of that genome, and implantation of the embryo in the uterus. The first occurs immediately; the last occurs approximately two weeks after insemination (or, in the case of embryos created through in vitro fertilization that do not get implanted, never). Thus, on some reasonable readings of the amendment, certain forms of birth control, stem cell derivation and the destruction of embryos created through in vitro fertilization would seem impermissible, while on other equally reasonable readings they are not.

Second, the proposed amendment does not clearly indicate what the immediate legal impact would be. Would the amendment be “self-executing” — that is, effectuate a change to Mississippi law on its own — or would it require enabling legislation to set that change in motion?

Under existing doctrine, constitutional provisions or amendments that only set forth “first principles” or “policies” are not treated as self-executing, because they need laws enacted to further the stated principles or policies. In this case it’s not clear whether the amendment would, for example, immediately redefine thousands of references to “human beings” or “persons,” including those in provisions governing criminal homicide, or whether additional legislation would be necessary. Because of this uncertainty, voters considering this amendment cannot tell what actions would and would not immediately be subject to prosecutorial investigation were the amendment to pass.

It is obvious why those who support abortion rights will be uncomfortable with this amendment. But opponents of abortion rights may find that it covers more than they bargained for, including some forms of in vitro fertilization and birth control. Indeed, 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.   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.


Mississippi voters, whatever their views on abortion, deserve an amendment that is clear on its face. This is not such an amendment.

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2011, 01:02:43 PM »

Barbour: Life-at-Fertilization Prop 'Ambiguous'
Wednesday, 02 Nov 2011

JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's Republican governor, Haley Barbour, says the life-at-fertilization initiative on next Tuesday's state ballot is "ambiguous" and he's not sure whether he'll vote for or against it.

Initiative 26 seeks to amend the state constitution to declare that life begins when a human egg is fertilized.

Barbour told reporters Wednesday he opposes abortion but thinks the initiative could have unintended consequences if it passes. For example, he said it's unclear whether the measure would hamper in vitro fertilization or limit medical treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies. Such concerns have also been raised by physicians' groups, including one that represents Mississippi obstetricians and gynecologists.

Barbour, who leaves office in January after two terms, said he believes life begins at conception, but he thinks that's different than what the initiative asks.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/MississippiAbortionAmendment/2011/11/02/id/416616
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2011, 01:28:59 PM »

Barbour: Life-at-Fertilization Prop 'Ambiguous'
Wednesday, 02 Nov 2011

JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's Republican governor, Haley Barbour, says the life-at-fertilization initiative on next Tuesday's state ballot is "ambiguous" and he's not sure whether he'll vote for or against it.

Initiative 26 seeks to amend the state constitution to declare that life begins when a human egg is fertilized.

Barbour told reporters Wednesday he opposes abortion but thinks the initiative could have unintended consequences if it passes. For example, he said it's unclear whether the measure would hamper in vitro fertilization or limit medical treatment for women with ectopic pregnancies. Such concerns have also been raised by physicians' groups, including one that represents Mississippi obstetricians and gynecologists.

Barbour, who leaves office in January after two terms, said he believes life begins at conception, but he thinks that's different than what the initiative asks.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/MississippiAbortionAmendment/2011/11/02/id/416616

I wonder why Barbour has no qualms about forcing rape victims to bear their rapists child

no fundie on this board seems to have a problem with it either
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11873


Getbig!


« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2011, 01:35:37 PM »

can you imagine the women having the baby and all the family members saying oh how quite looks just like the little rapest  Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2011, 01:51:51 PM »

can you imagine the women having the baby and all the family members saying oh how quite looks just like the little rapest  Cheesy

I thought the Repubs were the party who didn't intrude into a persons private life

can you imagine the horror of surviving a violent attack and then being forced by the state to have to give birth to that child.

Given that the morning after pill can be given immediately and actually prevent conception it's an ubelievably cruel thing to do to a woman and imagine if it wasn't an adult woman but let's say a 14 year old girl and let's say the girl was raped by her father or some other family member.

Fundies who believe in this ideoa of life beginning basically at the moment or rape would insist that the girl bear her fathers child

I haven't heard one fundie come on this thread and say one word about this
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2011, 10:01:15 AM »

Barbour Votes for Life-at-Fertilization Initiative
Thursday, 03 Nov 2011

PEARL, Miss. — Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour says he voted for a state ballot initiative that would declare life begins at fertilization.

The Republican said he voted by absentee ballot Thursday because he won't be in his hometown for Tuesday's election.

Barbour had told reporters on Wednesday that he was undecided because he thinks the initiative is ambiguous and he had concerns about how it might affect in vitro fertilization and ectopic pregnancies.

Barbour said he still has concerns about how it might affect healthcare, if passed. But he said he voted for it, ultimately, because he believes life begins at conception.

Barbour weighed a presidential bid in 2012 but decided against it.

He answered questions after appearing at a campaign rally for Phil Bryant, the Republican trying to succeed him as governor.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Barbour-fertilization-amendment-voted/2011/11/03/id/416819
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2011, 12:01:16 PM »

still not a word from any of our resident fundies on how they would deal with the trauma inflicted on rape victims by forcing them to bear the child of their rapist

I agree life begins at conception.  That's the logical starting point, rather than some arbitrary "viability" line, etc.  I think people who have been involved with the pregnancy and the birth of a child (male or female) is more likely to understand and appreciate that there is actually a life in the womb (whether the law recognizes it or not). 

In terms of the rape and incest exceptions, I don't think there can be a logical distinction between aborting a baby conceived through consensual sex and aborting one conceived through rape.  It's still an innocent child.  So, if a state is going to ban it, a rape/incest exception isn't reasonable IMO

I view the mother's life and health differently, because then you have competing interests (mother vs. baby).  Not saying this should happen, just following the argument to its logical (or illogical) conclusion.   

In any event, I've said this many times before, but I don't think there is a political solution to this issue, short of a "personhood amendment," and even then it probably will never be settled.   

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2011, 09:59:24 AM »

Good article.  Touches on both sides.  

Mississippi gov. supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person
By Mallory Simon, CNN
Fri November 4, 2011



If the Mississippi amendment passes, the moment an egg is fertilized a woman would not be able to get an abortion in the state.

(CNN) -- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour offered his support Friday for an amendment to the state constitution that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, saying he cast his absentee ballot for the measure despite struggling with its implications.

"I have some concerns about it," he said in a statement issued Friday, a day after casting his ballot. "But I think all in all, I believe life begins at conception, so I think the right thing to do was to vote for it."

On Wednesday, Barbour, a Republican, said that he was still undecided and that the measure was "too ambiguous."

Initiative 26 would define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
Though the text of the amendment is simple, the implications if it passes couldn't be more complex. If approved by Mississippi voters on Tuesday, it would make it impossible to get an abortion and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control.

Because the amendment would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights, it could have an impact on a woman's ability to get the morning-after pill or birth control pills that destroy fertilized eggs, and it could make in vitro fertilization treatments more difficult because it could become illegal to dispose of unused fertilized eggs. This could lead to a nationwide debate about women's rights and abortion while setting up a possible challenge to the landmark Roe v. Wade case, which makes abortion legal.

The ballot initiative is part of a national campaign brought by Personhood USA. The Colorado-based group describes itself as a nonprofit Christian ministry that "serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans."

The idea for personhood was born during Roe v. Wade's oral arguments, when Justice Potter Stewart said, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here." Now, Personhood USA is trying to use the amendment to establish "personhood" as a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling.

The initiative has been gaining support across many demographics, according to polls suggesting that it will probably pass.
The Mississippi State Medical Association and Doctors Against MS 26 are voicing concern about implications for the health care of women as well as their ability to practice medicine.

Clergy and church officials in the heavily religious state are split on the issue. Some anti-abortion religious groups say they think this step may be so extreme, it could lead to a Supreme Court ruling that actually strengthens Roe v. Wade.

The Democratic and Republican candidates for governor have both said they are behind the amendment, and Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, has said he would enforce the measure if it passed.

While Barbour said he still has concerns, he said in a statement Friday that a group opposed to the measure is calling Mississippi voters and telling them he is opposed to it.

"These misleading calls were made without my knowledge, without my permission and against my wishes," Barbour's statement said. "I have demanded that this deception be stopped, and those responsible have assured me that no more calls will be made."

The governor's office identified the group as Mississippians for Healthy Families.

A statement from the group said the calls used "the exact words of Gov. Haley Barbour about the 'unintended consequences' caused by this dangerous initiative," noting that the concerns expressed earlier in the week by the governor "echo those of doctors, nurses, clergy, parents and many pro-life Mississippians who are opposed to Initiative 26."

Jonathan F. Will, director of the Bioethics and Health Law Center at the Mississippi College of Law, said he, too, is concerned that people may not be able to understand the complexity of the amendment.

"My first thought, literally, was people aren't going to understand what this means ... what implications it has beyond abortions," he said.

Differing voices

What the amendment means, and whether it is either the most sensible measure or the most extreme and dangerous one, depends on whom you talk to in Mississippi.

Terri Herring, the national director for the Pro-Life America network and an advisory board member for Yes on 26, said the goal of the amendment is to give people the chance to say there is a better way than abortion. She also said the vote is a way to change the national conversation and push to give more rights to the unborn.

"In Mississippi, we have the opportunity to lead the way on a social justice issue," Herring said. "We may have been behind on civil rights, but we can be ahead on human rights, and that's what personhood is really all about."

But those opposed to the measure say that voting yes would be a huge mistake.

Cristen Hemmins, a mother from Oxford, has been speaking out against Initiative 26 because of what it could mean for her, her daughters and the ability of families to make the choices they want with their doctors.

"Whether or not you believe life begins at conception, this amendment goes too far," she said. "It is too ambiguous. It seems so obvious to me that it is far-reaching and it is going to be big government getting all up in my uterus."

Whether or not you believe life begins at conception, this amendment goes too far.

Cristen Hemmins, opponent of Initiative 26

Hemmins believes that passing the amendment would give the state too much control over women's reproductive rights.

Herring, on the other hand, thinks the amendment would be a way for Mississippi to be the first to support the rights of an unborn fetus while correcting contradictions in the state's constitution.

"If a woman was attacked and her unborn child was killed, it would be fetal homicide. That is considered a person," she said. "But on that very same day in the same area, a woman could go and have an abortion and kill her child, and nothing would happen. So we have a contradiction, and that is what we're trying to fix here."

But Hemmins believes that passing the amendment would be a "blight" on Mississippi, not a shining moment, and she cautions those who think this is just a local issue.

Mississippi is the only state voting on a "personhood" initiative this year, but similar measures have gone on the ballot in other states and were defeated by wide margins. Other personhood measures are being planned for next year in Florida, Montana and Ohio, according to supporters. Efforts in at least five other states are in the planning stages.

"Apparently, they thought they needed to find a place more religious and more conservative, so they headed down here," Hemmins said. "But this is big government going too far in the poorest state in the country, with the highest teen pregnancy rate, the highest STD rate -- let's focus on fixing those things."

But many of those who support Initiative 26 say that defining life as the moment an egg is fertilized will allow women to really think about the decision of raising a child and open the door for a more successful adoption policy.

"We're trying to say there is another way besides abortion, that there can be a home for every child," Herring said. "Not every unwanted child has to die. There are over a million couples waiting to adopt. It's time to stop the senseless killing of children. We can provide these children, if people don't want them, to all of those who cannot have children themselves and stop the rush of people going to Russia, China and other areas to get children."

What would the measure mean?

Hemmins and others who work with No on 26 say the measure brings up more questions than answers, such as: What does it mean for women's reproductive rights? What does it mean about the decisions a woman can make with her doctor? Will it mean women will be at the mercy of the state when it comes to everything from taking certain birth control pills to trying to conceive if a couple is infertile?

But those in support of this measure say those questions are scare tactics used to sway votes.

"(They should) stop the fear-mongering and the tactics that are just talking about outrageous things that we do not believe will happen," Herring said. "This is really about saying, 'What did our forefathers intend when they used the word "person"?' I think very clearly, there is no way that long ago they had any intention of not including the unborn as a person. So in my mind, this is a historic vote, and it provides the people to have a voice in protecting life."

This is a historic vote, and it provides the people to have a voice in protecting life.

Terri Herring, supporter of Initiative 26

The vote is a way to start the conversation, Herring said, and laws that would help govern the definition change would come later.
"What legislation falls under that is yet to be determined," she said.

That is exactly the problem, according to opponents.

"Talking about the (implications) is just being smart; it's not fear-mongering," Hemmins said. "You don't pass an amendment like this and not think about what it might mean. That is just reckless."

Will, as a legal expert, said that if the amendment were to pass, it will probably face several legal challenges, but it also opens the doors for interpretation by local officials.

"The concern is that you could have local prosecutors that as soon as this amendment goes into place would say 'OK, well clearly this is the policy the people of this state want, so now I'm going to use our code to investigate miscarriages and IVF,' " Will said.

An area of particular concern for opponents is that it doesn't provide exception for victims of rape or incest who wish to terminate their pregnancy. Many states have varying bans on abortions but allow exceptions for such circumstances.

Hemmins, who was abducted, raped and shot twice by two men while she was in college, said it is "terrible" to not allow for any exceptions.
"I did not get pregnant, thank goodness, but if I had and Initiative 26 had been in place, I would have had no options," she said. "I would have been forced to have had this child by the government. I think it's a travesty in the United States of America that a state could force a woman against her will to bear a child."

Those supporting the amendment note that only a small fraction of people have to deal with that issue. A 2005 study by the Guttmacher Institute of New York shows that only 1% of women who had had an abortion said they had been raped. The study also showed that fewer than 0.5% became pregnant because of incest.

Herring said she has spoken to several rape victims who have been more haunted by their decision to abort their babies than by the rapes themselves. The Yes on 26 group even has videos posted of women speaking at local forums, discussing that exact issue.

One thing supporters and opponents of the amendment agree on is that this vote has the potential to change the entire debate about women's rights and abortion nationwide.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2011, 12:14:13 PM »

yet another article with no comment about the additional trauma that would be incurred when the state forces a rape victim to bear her rapists child

I guess it's just easier to not think about such things rather than have to face reality
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2011, 12:32:22 PM »

If would refreshing if fundies would just for once admit that their goal it to use our laws to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone

Right now we have a system that says if you don't believe in abortion or believe that life begins at intercourse then you are free to choose a path congruent with those beliefs.    The ammendment will basically require everyone to conform to that belief thereby codifying a religious belief into our legal system

Essentially fundies will now have their own version of sharia law


This is from the list of Frequently Asked Questions from

http://personhoodmississippi.com/amendment-26/why.aspx


Quote
Finally, and most importantly:

•If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 we will be honoring God and loving our neighbors in our law system
.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2011, 08:02:23 AM »

Apparently these "pro-life" christians don't think the government should be trying to limit their freedom

I wonder if they feel the same way about abortion.  I assume they must since they have no problem with a procedure that might end in the death of a fertilized egg

Why can't these fundies just face the obvious fact that if god wanted them to have children they would be able to have them the normal way then won't be tempted by Satan toward that devil of modern science of in vitro fertilization


http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Mississippi amendment on 'personhood' divides Christians

Columbus, Mississippi (CNN) -- In the Carpenter home, every meal begins with a prayer. Robin and his wife, Emily, are devout Christians. But they part ways with many other Christians over a measure that would expand the legal definition of human life.

Their son, Luke, now 4 years old, was born through in vitro fertilization.

The anti-abortion amendment being voted on this week in the state could restrict in vitro procedures, and the Carpenters are worried that if they wait too long to add to their family, they may end up breaking the law.

"I don't really want or need anybody else getting involved in trying to limit how that works for us, or stopping it," said Robin Carpenter. "We need to have the same rights to have a family as anybody else does."

The Carpenters fear that if Mississippi Amendment 26 passes on Tuesday, their whole future will change.

The controversial measure, known as "Personhood," will ask Mississippians to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, which would eliminate abortion, including in the cases of women who are the victims of rape and incest. The law would also outlaw certain forms of birth control and the destruction of embryos in laboratories -- which puts in vitro fertilization procedures in question because it results in unused fertilized eggs.

Mississippi governor supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person

"The amendment is simple," said Dr. Freda Bush, a Mississippi obstetrician and strong supporter of the measure.

"I can't imagine anyone who is truly pro-life not supporting or acknowledging the fact that the baby begins at conception, deserves life, has done nothing to deserve death, she told CNN.

"In rape and incest, the life that has been created during that process has done nothing to deserve death. The mother is a victim and there's no reason to make a victim a murderer," she said.

But while the Carpenters consider themselves pro-life, they say their personal situation can't bring them to support this amendment. They've decided to move up their next In vitro fertilization procedure.

"We're trying to hurry up and get it started before all of this takes place," Emily Carpenter said.

In vitro fertilization has "helped our family grow, and that's what we want as parents. We don't want anybody to limit our ability to have children," she said.

If it passes, the amendment would take effect before the end of the year.

And although the amendment's wording is simple, what has the Carpenters and others worried is that it would compel the Mississippi legislature to develop the rules and laws to enforce the amendment.

"I think it's the whole wording of the amendment. There's too much gray area to vote for it, said Emily Carpenter. "You can't trust what their intentions are if they don't state it."

Representatives in the Yes on 26 movement say that anyone who considers themselves to be pro-life should be supporting the amendment.

"Embryologists, medical doctors, lawyers are going to have to inform our representatives to help them develop the law," said Bush, a Yes on 26 spokeswoman.

"This is a principle. ... All of those other details can be worked out," she said.

Experts and state officials say that if the amendment passes, the court battles to stop it will soon begin.

"Clearly we would anticipate there would be a litigation challenge on this issue and the legislature would have to fill in all of the blanks for this as we go forward," said Mississippi's secretary of state, Delbert Hosemann.

"The constitution is a working document, so this would have a number of different issues that would have to be addressed," he said.

It's that lack of specifics that has many people upset. Many worry about voting for an amendment without knowing the exact medical, moral, legal and criminal implications.

Diane Derzis, who runs Mississippi's only abortion clinic, said most people don't understand how far-reaching the amendment could be.

"By this very definition of this bill, a fertilized egg is a person, so that does away with the IUD and most forms of birth control," she said. "For a woman who has a miscarriage -- is she going to be investigated? I mean, this may sound like the Twilight Zone, but this is where we are with this stuff."

Supporters of the amendment dismiss such speculation as scare tactics.

The ballot initiative is part of a national campaign brought by Personhood USA. Mississippi is the only state voting on a personhood initiative this year, but similar measures have been defeated in Colorado. Other personhood initiatives are being planned next year in Florida, Montana and Ohio, according to supporters. Efforts in at least five other states are in the planning stages.

Personhood USA, a Colorado-based group, describes itself as a nonprofit Christian ministry that "serves the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans."

The idea for personhood was born during Roe v. Wade's oral arguments, when Justice Potter Stewart said, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here." Now, Personhood USA is trying to use the amendment to establish "personhood" as a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling.

Legal experts say Mississippi is a good place for the movement to make that challenge.

"It's a religious issue in a very conservative state," said W. Martin Wiseman, director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University.

"The national movement that's ready to fight the final battle over Roe v Wade could not have picked a better state," he said.

But for the Carpenter family -- despite their pro-life beliefs -- voting for this amendment is just not something they can live with. Their in vitro fertilization attempts to have a brother or sister for their son, Luke, will soon begin. They fear that under the amendment, they could be labeled as murderers if their fertilized eggs die.
"It is a concern, but a bigger concern for us is to not be able to have children," said Robin Carpenter. "If it means that I'm labeled a murderer, but I am able to have children, it's a risk that we'll definitely take."

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2011, 08:22:01 PM »

Mississippi defeats life at conception ballot initiative

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) – Mississippi voters Tuesday defeated a ballot initiative that would've declared life begins at conception, a proposal that supporters sought in the Bible Belt state as a way to prompt a legal challenge to abortion rights nationwide.

The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of voters, falling far short of the threshold needed for it to be enacted. If it had passed, it was virtually assured of drawing legal challenges because it conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a legal right to abortion. Supporters of the initiative wanted to provoke a lawsuit to challenge the landmark ruling.

The measure divided the medical and religious communities and caused some of the most ardent abortion opponents, including Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, to waver with their support.

Opponents said the measure would have made birth control, such as the morning-after pill or the intrauterine device, illegal — and that it would have deterred physicians from performing in vitro fertilization because they would fear criminal charges if an embryo doesn't survive.

Supporters were trying to impose their religious beliefs on others by forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, including those caused by rape or incest, opponents said.

Amy Brunson voted against the measure, in part because she has been raped. She also has friends and family that had children through in vitro fertilization and she was worried this would end that process.

"The lines are so unclear on what may or may not happen. I think there are circumstances beyond everybody's control that can't be regulated through an amendment," said Brunson, a 36-year-old dog trainer and theater production assistant from Jackson.

Hubert Hoover, a cabinet maker and construction worker, voted for the amendment.

"I figure you can't be half for something, so if you're against abortion you should be for this. You've either got to be wholly for something or wholly against it," said Hoover, 71, who lives in a Jackson suburb.

Mississippi already has tough abortion regulations and only one clinic where the procedures are performed, making it a fitting venue for a national movement to get abortion bans into state constitutions.

Keith Mason, co-founder of the group Personhood USA, which pushed the Mississippi ballot measure, has said a win would send shockwaves around the country. The Colorado-based group is trying to put similar initiatives on 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio and Oregon. Voters in Colorado rejected similar proposals in 2008 and 2010.

Barbour, long considered a 2012 presidential candidate before he ruled out a run this year, said a week ago that he was undecided. A day later, he voted absentee for the amendment, but said he struggled with his support.

"Some very strongly pro-life people have raised questions about the ambiguity and about the actual consequences — whether there are unforeseen, unintended consequences. And I'll have to say that I have heard those concerns and they give me some pause," Barbour said last week.

Barbour was prevented from seeking re-election because of term limits. The Democrat and Republican candidates vying to replace him both supported the abortion measure.

Specifically, the proposed state constitutional amendment defined a person "to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."

The state's largest Christian denomination, the Mississippi Baptist Convention, backed the proposal through its lobbying arm.

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church opposed it.

Bishop Joseph Latino of the Catholic Diocese of Jackson, a church traditionally against abortion, issued a statement neither supporting nor opposing the initiative. The Mississippi State Medical Association took a similar step while other medical groups opposed it.

Mississippi already requires parental or judicial consent for any minor to get an abortion, mandatory in-person counseling and a 24-hour wait before any woman can terminate a pregnancy.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-08/Mississippi-Abortion-Amendment/51129886/1
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2011, 01:28:42 PM »

Barbour said the mistake they made was not sending it through the legislature first to resolve ambiguities. 

'Personhood' Effort Still Alive after Miss. Defeat
Wednesday, 09 Nov 2011

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Abortion opponents say they're still pursuing life-at-fertilization ballot initiatives in six other states after Bible Belt voters in Mississippi defeated one Tuesday.

The "personhood" proposal was intended to prompt a legal challenge aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a legal right to abortion.

Keith Mason is co-founder of Personhood USA, which pushed the Mississippi measure. The Colorado-based group is trying to put initiatives on 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Nevada and California. Voters in Colorado rejected similar proposals in 2008 and 2010.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the initiatives represent an "extreme, dangerous and direct assault" on abortion rights.

Mason told The Associated Press that Personhood USA might revive efforts for another ballot initiative in Mississippi.

Speaking of the failure in Mississippi on Tuesday, Mason said, "it's not because the people are not pro-life. It's because Planned Parenthood put a lot of misconceptions and lies in front of folks and created a lot of confusion."

Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement: "Mississippi voters rejected the so-called 'personhood' amendment because they understood it is government gone too far, and would have allowed government to have control over personal decisions that should be left up to a woman, her family, her doctor and her faith, including keeping a woman with a life-threatening pregnancy from getting the care she needs, and criminalizing everything from abortion to common forms of birth control such as the pill and the IUD."

The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of Mississippi voters, falling far short of the threshold needed for it to be enacted.

The measure divided the medical and religious communities and caused some of the most ardent abortion opponents, including Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, to waver with their support.

Opponents said the measure would have made birth control, such as the morning-after pill or the intrauterine device, illegal. More specifically, the ballot measure called for abortion to be prohibited "from the moment of fertilization" — wording that opponents suggested would have deterred physicians from performing in vitro fertilization because they would fear criminal charges if an embryo doesn't survive.

Opponents also said supporters were trying to impose their religious beliefs on others by forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies, including those caused by rape or incest.

Amy Brunson voted against the measure, in part because she has been raped. She also has friends and family that had children through in vitro fertilization and she was worried this would end that process.

"The lines are so unclear on what may or may not happen. I think there are circumstances beyond everybody's control that can't be regulated through an amendment," said Brunson, a 36-year-old dog trainer and theater production assistant from Jackson.

Buddy Hairston, 39, took his 8-year-old triplets to a precinct outside Jackson to hold signs supporting the initiative.

"Unborn children are being killed on a daily basis in our state and country, and it's urgent that we protect them," said Hairston, a forestry consultant.

Mississippi already has tough abortion regulations and only one clinic where the procedures are performed, making it a fitting venue for a national movement to get abortion bans into state constitutions.

The state's largest Christian denomination, the Mississippi Baptist Convention, backed the proposal through its lobbying arm, the Christian Action Commission.

"We mourn with heaven tonight over the loss of Initiative 26, which would have provided the hope of life for thousands of God's unborn babies in Mississippi," said the commission's director, the Rev. Jimmy Porter. "Instead the unborn in Mississippi will continue to be led down on a path of destruction to horrible deaths both inside their mothers and in laboratories."

The bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church opposed the initiative.

Bishop Joseph Latino of the Catholic Diocese of Jackson, a church traditionally against abortion, issued a statement neither supporting nor opposing the initiative. The Mississippi State Medical Association took a similar step, while other medical groups opposed it.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/MississippiAbortionAmendment/2011/11/09/id/417354
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2011, 02:50:28 PM »

Barbour said the mistake they made was not sending it through the legislature first to resolve ambiguities. 

the ambiguity was intentional
Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20986


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #41 on: November 11, 2011, 08:03:18 AM »

Would this amendment have made taking the morning after pill murder?  Huh
Report to moderator   Logged

Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #42 on: November 11, 2011, 09:50:42 AM »

Would this amendment have made taking the morning after pill murder?  Huh

absolutely and some fundies on this board actually believe that too
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2011, 03:59:55 PM »

Will be interesting to see if he gets behind these personhood amendments. 

Democrats continue to push Romney on abortion
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough

Washington (CNN) – A Democratic group joined in Saturday on the attacks against Mitt Romney, arguing that he's a true anti-abortion-rights supporter and was only "faking it" when he took opposing positions as a political candidate in Massachusetts.

"If Romney wins the presidency, he won’t have to ‘fake it’ ever again," said Bill Burton, senior strategist at Priorities USA, a super political action committee dedicated to helping President Barack Obama win re-election.

The comments came in a memo to supporters on Saturday, as the former Massachusetts governor has been taking heat for weeks for wavering on some of his positions, including abortion, during his political career.

But Burton argued that Romney never truly meant it when he previously said he supported a woman's right to choose and only said so in order to win votes in the largely Democratic state of Massachusetts.

"Put simply, the people who knew Romney best knew he was lying," Burton said.

The group falsely said Romney had endorsed a controversial proposal in Mississippi that would define life at conception and ban abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk.

While Romney hasn't made an official comment on the so-called "personhood" proposal, which was voted down in the state by a wide margin this week, he said in an interview last month that he would have supported a similar amendment in Massachusetts.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, asked Romney on his Fox News show if he would have supported a "constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception."

Romney replied: "Absolutely."


The exchange was featured in a web video released by the Democratic National Committee last week, targeting Romney as an extremist on abortion rights.

In his bid for president, Romney has taken the line that “life begins at conception," but he has said any legal measures should be decided by the states, not the federal government.

In response to the Priorities USA memo on Saturday, Romney's team said Democrats are simply fearful of the candidate taking the nomination and proving a tough competitor for Obama.

"The very last thing the Democrats want to do is run against Mitt Romney. That is why they are focused on Mitt Romney and not the economy," said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, in a statement. "The Democrats are continuing their campaign of deception in their strategy to ‘kill Romney.’ President Obama’s campaign is going to be very interesting to watch, but it’s not going to work.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/12/democrats-continue-to-push-romney-on-abortion/
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31960


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2011, 04:43:38 PM »

Will be interesting to see if he gets behind these personhood amendments.  

Democrats continue to push Romney on abortion
Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough

Washington (CNN) – A Democratic group joined in Saturday on the attacks against Mitt Romney, arguing that he's a true anti-abortion-rights supporter and was only "faking it" when he took opposing positions as a political candidate in Massachusetts.

"If Romney wins the presidency, he won’t have to ‘fake it’ ever again," said Bill Burton, senior strategist at Priorities USA, a super political action committee dedicated to helping President Barack Obama win re-election.

The comments came in a memo to supporters on Saturday, as the former Massachusetts governor has been taking heat for weeks for wavering on some of his positions, including abortion, during his political career.

But Burton argued that Romney never truly meant it when he previously said he supported a woman's right to choose and only said so in order to win votes in the largely Democratic state of Massachusetts.

"Put simply, the people who knew Romney best knew he was lying," Burton said.

The group falsely said Romney had endorsed a controversial proposal in Mississippi that would define life at conception and ban abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is at risk.

While Romney hasn't made an official comment on the so-called "personhood" proposal, which was voted down in the state by a wide margin this week, he said in an interview last month that he would have supported a similar amendment in Massachusetts.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a 2008 GOP presidential candidate, asked Romney on his Fox News show if he would have supported a "constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception."

Romney replied: "Absolutely."


The exchange was featured in a web video released by the Democratic National Committee last week, targeting Romney as an extremist on abortion rights.

In his bid for president, Romney has taken the line that “life begins at conception," but he has said any legal measures should be decided by the states, not the federal government.

In response to the Priorities USA memo on Saturday, Romney's team said Democrats are simply fearful of the candidate taking the nomination and proving a tough competitor for Obama.

"The very last thing the Democrats want to do is run against Mitt Romney. That is why they are focused on Mitt Romney and not the economy," said Andrea Saul, a Romney spokeswoman, in a statement. "The Democrats are continuing their campaign of deception in their strategy to ‘kill Romney.’ President Obama’s campaign is going to be very interesting to watch, but it’s not going to work.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/12/democrats-continue-to-push-romney-on-abortion/

Let's hope he is for it and even makes  it a part of his campaign
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2011, 01:11:22 PM »

Now this is different.  Should the government prevent people from doing this?

Abortion Battle Heats Up on the Hill
By Shannon Bream
Published December 05, 2011
FoxNews.com


Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.

On Tuesday, he'll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.
"It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex," Franks says.

Pro-choice advocates say PreNDA is an "anti-choice" measure. Nancy Northup, President of Center for Reproductive Rights, calls it a "trumped up bill for a trumped up problem," and says it's a ridiculous waste of congressional resources at a time when the U.S. economy is faltering.

"This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Northup.

PreNDA contains both civil penalties and jail time for those who violate the ban, but not the women who seek or obtain abortions. Franks says he believes women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy are "victims" who need help in the midst of a crisis, not punishment.

However, those who perform abortions done solely for sex- or race-selection purposes could face fines and up to five years in prison.

The bill will be vetted during a hearing in the House on Tuesday, which is slated to include testimony from a number of experts. Franks says the bill currently has about 60 co-sponsors and he's hoping to add more. "I would hope that even my friends on the left would be able to say 'No, this can't be who we are.'"

Critics say the bill has no chance of being passed this term. Even so, Franks says he hopes it will at least spark important conversations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/abortion-battle-heats-up-on-hill/?test=latestnews#ixzz1fk2rFYPR
Report to moderator   Logged
bears
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2196


« Reply #46 on: December 06, 2011, 02:36:18 PM »

Now this is different.  Should the government prevent people from doing this?

Abortion Battle Heats Up on the Hill
By Shannon Bream
Published December 05, 2011
FoxNews.com


Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., an outspoken pro-life advocate, is preparing to do battle again on Capitol Hill.

On Tuesday, he'll chair a House hearing in support of his latest legislative effort, the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act (PreNDA). The measure would ban abortions done on the basis of gender or race.
"It would simply say that you cannot discriminate against the unborn by subjecting them to an abortion based on their race or sex," Franks says.

Pro-choice advocates say PreNDA is an "anti-choice" measure. Nancy Northup, President of Center for Reproductive Rights, calls it a "trumped up bill for a trumped up problem," and says it's a ridiculous waste of congressional resources at a time when the U.S. economy is faltering.

"This bill is a cynical and offensive attempt to evoke race and sex discrimination when actually it's about taking women's rights away," said Northup.

PreNDA contains both civil penalties and jail time for those who violate the ban, but not the women who seek or obtain abortions. Franks says he believes women who find themselves with an unintended pregnancy are "victims" who need help in the midst of a crisis, not punishment.

However, those who perform abortions done solely for sex- or race-selection purposes could face fines and up to five years in prison.

The bill will be vetted during a hearing in the House on Tuesday, which is slated to include testimony from a number of experts. Franks says the bill currently has about 60 co-sponsors and he's hoping to add more. "I would hope that even my friends on the left would be able to say 'No, this can't be who we are.'"

Critics say the bill has no chance of being passed this term. Even so, Franks says he hopes it will at least spark important conversations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/abortion-battle-heats-up-on-hill/?test=latestnews#ixzz1fk2rFYPR

this is the slippery slope that all pro choice people refuse to believe exists.  if you were to walk into a room of pro choice advocates in the 1970's and tell them that there would be 2 million abortions per year in the US alone and that 30 years from now we will be aborting kids because they are male, female, minority, or gay (everyone knows this is coming.  if you don't you're fucking stupid), you would be laughed out of the room and labelled a far right loon.

it's an absolute certainty that in a few years our pro choice constituents are going to regret not being more careful about what they wished for.   
Report to moderator   Logged
bears
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2196


« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2011, 02:37:53 PM »

this is the slippery slope that all pro choice people refuse to believe exists.  if you were to walk into a room of pro choice advocates in the 1970's and tell them that there would be 2 million abortions per year in the US alone and that 30 years from now we will be aborting kids because they are male, female, minority, or gay (everyone knows this is coming.  if you don't you're fucking stupid), you would be laughed out of the room and labelled a far right loon.

it's an absolute certainty that in a few years our pro choice constituents are going to regret not being more careful about what they wished for.   

but hey keep fighting the good fight guys!  LOL.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 26470


« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2011, 03:13:43 PM »

this is the slippery slope that all pro choice people refuse to believe exists.  if you were to walk into a room of pro choice advocates in the 1970's and tell them that there would be 2 million abortions per year in the US alone and that 30 years from now we will be aborting kids because they are male, female, minority, or gay (everyone knows this is coming.  if you don't you're fucking stupid), you would be laughed out of the room and labelled a far right loon.

it's an absolute certainty that in a few years our pro choice constituents are going to regret not being more careful about what they wished for.   
no they wont, ppl like straw man, lurker and blacken are perfectly ok with aborting a baby for any reason what so ever.

There is no boundry for ppl like them on this issue.
Report to moderator   Logged
newmom
Guest
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2011, 03:20:52 PM »

I'm glad that bill was defeated.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!