Mississippi is Bringing Personhood Back

Fetus Firsters in Mississippi are reviving the personhood fight — again.

In 2011, voters rejected the notion that eggs are people, too. (@asiangrrlMN wrote about that here.)

But the Fetus Firsters are true believers, and true believers don’t quit — ever. Via Robin Marty at RH Reality Check:

Not content to ever take “no” for an answer, Personhood USA has announced that it is returning to Mississippi to have another go at forcing a vote on an amendment that would grant all rights of legal personhood to fertilized eggs.

Personhood Mississippi filed paperwork for another ballot initiative, and the language of it looks very familiar to those who rejected the 2011 version. Amendment 26 read: “Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word “person” or “persons,” as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.”

According to Parents Against Personhood, this year’s version is just a little different. This year, it’s all about God. “The right to life begins at conception. All human beings, at every stage of development, are unique, created in God’s image and shall have equal rights as persons under the law.”

If at first you don’t succeed, add extra Jesus.

[cross-posted at ABLC]

42 replies
  1. 1
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    If snowflake babies could vote..

  2. 2
    dedc79 says:

    “created in god’s image”

    So was god also a combinaton of egg and a sperm at some point?

  3. 3
    Zifnab says:

    All human beings, at every stage of development, are unique, created in God’s image and shall have equal rights as persons under the law.”

    Until they’re actually born. Then fuck’em.

  4. 4
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Haven’t state legislators pretty much made it impossible for women to secure legal abortions in Mississippi? What’s the purpose of this Personhood law? To ban contraception?

  5. 5
    EnfantTerrible says:

    Shorter Personhood USA: “Woman? What woman?”

  6. 6
    c u n d gulag says:

    Let me know when they start arresting men for jerkin’-the-gherkin.

    We kill billions of potential humans with just a few yanks at the old one-eyed meat-snake.

  7. 7
    Citizen Alan says:

    As the article notes, this is timed to coincide with the 2015 gubernatorial election, and Phil Bryant, our Governor-Mullah, will be vulnerable on account of the fact that (a) he turned down millions in Medicaid money and (b) he’s dumber than shit.

  8. 8

    cloning or functional equivalent. interesting catchall.

    are my intertrons borked? I don’t see a post title for this.

  9. 9
    The prophet Nostradumbass says:

    @c u n d gulag: if any sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @ranchandsyrup:

    The Onanity of it all.

    That’s very masturbing.

  12. 12
    catclub says:

    @Patricia Kayden: yes.
    SATSQ

    It was beaten because health providers were opposed and pretty well organized. It would also kill in vitro fertilization clinics. — And those apparently take in real money.

    It failed on an off election year. I wonder if it would succeed in a national (even numbered) election year, since being in an off year, the dollars likely to oppose the far right had only a few places to go. In a national election they might not find their way to Miss.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    Wanna defeat this: Have every black and Hispanic in the state talk about how that means they can have all the guns they want, can’t be denied the right to vote, must be given a quality education. Also, have every gay in the country talk about how this will mean they can get married in Mississippi and they will go to the state when it passes.

    It will die a quick death.

  15. 15
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Zifnab:

    Again, I must defer to one of our greatest minds on this issue:

    “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re pre-school, you’re fucked!”

  16. 16
    ArchTeryx says:

    @catclub: The flipside is also true: the right-wing dollars also only had a few places to go, and they, as always, vastly outspent the left. It didn’t matter.

  17. 17
    Chris says:

    The right to life begins at conception. All human beings, at every stage of development, are unique, created in God’s image and shall have equal rights as persons under the law.

    I’ll believe that it’s actually about that when they start caring about equal rights for born people as well as unborn people.

  18. 18
    catclub says:

    @ArchTeryx: True. The against campaign seemed to last about three weeks before the election, but was highly effective.

  19. 19
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @ranchandsyrup: Why you’re very wankcum!

  20. 20
    ArchTeryx says:

    @catclub: That also is a story with a lot of these sorts of ballot initiatives. The Right spends big. The Left, having far less money, has to spend smart.

    But ultimately, the political winds usually determine the outcome. How many gay marriage bans passed in 2004? Most of them would not pass now no matter how much the right spent on them.

  21. 21
    johnny aquitard says:

    @Zifnab: Or born dark. Extra fuck’em then.

  22. 22
    eemom says:

    The post title, if it had one, got eated, and it is creating an interesting effect over in the Recent Comments box. “Just Some Fuckhead on”

  23. 23
    scav says:

    Did they include ” the functional equivalent thereof.” to cater to corporate persons so they can be protected from all harm? And what about all those old quotes where women weren’t created in Gods image (see old guy with beard) and thus of secondary importance?

    A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory.

    Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, over and over and over again. Cathedrals of whining seem to be their only monuments recently.

  24. 24
    Litlebritdifrnt says:

    @ArchTeryx:

    Sadly one passed here in NC last year.

  25. 25
    ArchTeryx says:

    @Litlebritdifrnt: Doesn’t disprove my point unfortunately. The same time it passed, the NC electorate went EXTREMELY hard right – about as wild a swing as we unfortunately were cursed with in Michigan in 2010. It just got carried to victory right along with all the other Republicans.

    Most of the ones in 2004, AFAIK, were in swing states designed to try and shore up Bush’s base, to keep them turning out and voting. Worked, too – it was the difference in Ohio, which gave the election to Bush.

  26. 26
    Roger Moore says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    What’s the purpose of this Personhood law?

    To prove how much the supporters love Jesus. Also, too, to test the basic principle in federal court in the hopes of getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

  27. 27
    Jay C says:

    @scav:

    A man should not wear have anything on in his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory

    Probably a more accurate philosophy…

  28. 28
    Jay C says:

    And yeah, the site has been having problems today, I’ve had a couple of pithy posts eated….

  29. 29
    👽 Martin says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    What’s the purpose of this Personhood law?

    To ban abortion nationally. The GOP is playing a long bottom-up game. The more states they can get on the policy positions they desire, the easier it will be for them to make a national push. See gun legislation. See immigration. See gay rights. See voting rights.

    Dems are not playing that game, at least not in the same way. Health care reform was a top down solution. Immigration will be top down. Voting rights will be top down. Gay rights is going both ways (heh).

  30. 30
    scav says:

    @Jay C: When phrased that way, in the context of man’s actual head that he generally thinks with discussed above, emmission is clearly a sacrament.

  31. 31
    quannlace says:

    Hmmm, ‘add more Jesus.” Is that like fresh cracked pepper or shaved parmigan?

  32. 32
    Bokonon says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    What’s the purpose of this Personhood law? To ban contraception?

    Yes. That is exactly what it would do. By design.

    The people pushing these constitutional amendments try to deny it – claiming that this interpretation is a lie of the “liberal media” and the moneybags “abortion industry” in one breath, while talking up how wonderful it is that the miracle of life begins at the very start of conception in the very next breath. Cute.

    But there is no other way to interpret the language in the initiative. If this was a mistake, they would have removed it after several defeats. Instead, they keep doubling down.

    The strategy is to get this past the voters on sentimental grounds … and enshrine the concept that a fertilized egg is “life” and a full “person” with full legal rights in the state constitution – supreme over all other state laws. And then suddenly, a crusading right-wing state attorney general or a right-wing legislature can start restricting contraception legally under the state constitution. And then after setting up a direct conflict with federal constitutional law, they can start challenging the wobbly “right to privacy” under Supreme Court cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (much less Roe v. Wade). And either get the interpretation of the US Constitution changed, or find some states’ rights basis for each state doing its own thing.

    And then … well … you have a real mess. The activists shoot the moon, and they either win or lose.

    But they have faith and energy. And that’s the extreme right to life movement’s roadmap to total victory. First you go about changing the state constitution AND THEN you change the federal constitution in the most extreme way possible. Running a total reversal of the last 50 years changes in reproductive rights, point by point, step by step. And they ain’t happy with restricting JUST abortion no more. It is contraception they want to nail too.

  33. 33
    Gravenstone says:

    @👽 Martin:

    Gay rights is going both ways (heh).

    wouldn’t that make them bi rights?

  34. 34
    Roger Moore says:

    @👽 Martin:

    Dems are not playing that game, at least not in the same way. Health care reform was a top down solution. Immigration will be top down. Voting rights will be top down. Gay rights is going both ways (heh).

    Gay rights has been primarily bottom up; it’s only after a run of local successes that the national politicians got interested. Pot legalization has been very much bottom up.

    In general, I think things tend to be run from the top down whenever possible, since it means you get your way everywhere. It’s only when you can’t push them through nationally that you’re forced to try pushing it through separately in every jurisdiction.

  35. 35
    👽 Martin says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Gay rights has been primarily bottom up; it’s only after a run of local successes that the national politicians got interested. Pot legalization has been very much bottom up.

    Gay rights has been bottom up, but not so much as a national campaign. Its happened in the courts in some places, by legislation in others, by referendum in others. There’s a movement there, but half of the states are getting there because the opposition is organized. Prop 8 started because the CA supreme court went in favor of marriage rights, then the opposition mobilized, passed the initiative, the courts overturned it, and now we’re back at SCOTUS. If SCOTUS upholds the law, it won’t be because of Dems advancing it through the state, but because the GOP pushed the initiative through and all of these other things came as reaction to it. Lots of states are getting to gay rights mainly as a reaction to overreach by the right, not because of an effective movement by the left (they’re trying, but not succeeding – evidenced by Prop 8 passing).

    If SCOTUS sides with the state, it’d be just as fair to say that it was due to mobilization by the right, rather than the left. Without that victory by the right, it would never have gotten to the federal level.

  36. 36
    Roger Moore says:

    @👽 Martin:

    Prop 8 started because the CA supreme court went in favor of marriage rights, then the opposition mobilized, passed the initiative, the courts overturned it, and now we’re back at SCOTUS.

    That’s not the whole story, though. While the court challenge that led to marriage equality was going on, the Democratic-dominated state legislature passed marriage equality laws a couple of times, only to have them vetoed by the Governator. And honestly, the main reason so many right wing activists have been pushing for marriage discrimination is because they know that the grassroots push for marriage equality is gaining steam, and they’re trying to put a stop to it before it becomes unstoppable.

  37. 37
    fuckwit says:

    Now I want to name a band “Extra Jesus”

  38. 38

    @scav:

    A man should not wear anything on have a thought in his head when worshiping, for man God is made in God’s image man’s head and reflects God’s glory man’s ignorance.

  39. 39
  40. 40

    @Patricia Kayden: The purpose of personhood laws is to ban abortion nationally and also to ban contraception, which is why we’re seeing ridiculous claims about religious liberty in opposition to the birth control benefit (contraception mandare), backed by anti-science nonsense about contraception, Plan B, and Ella being an abortifacient (it’s not.)

  41. 41
    Brutusettu says:

    @Zifnab:

    Only Pharisees care about early childhood development, silly things like food for poor kids, etc.

  42. 42
    Pat says:

    An amendment should be introduced that requires a Certificate of Personhood when the pregnancy is confirmed. Both mother and father must be listed (exceptions for rape, abuse, of course). Financial responsibility accrues to father, custodial rights default to him if waived by mother.

    For married couples, no problem. Single women (those sluts in the rightwing lexicon) do not get pregnant by themselves. It’s time the consequences of sexual activity were shared, especially when choices are being limited.

    Want to bet a lot of men would soften their anti-contraception, anti-abortion stance?

Comments are closed.