Mississippi Personhood Amendment

[klwilliams]

Originally posted by james_nicoll at Mississippi Personhood Amendment

Originally posted by soldiergrrrl at Mississippi Personhood Amendment

Originally posted by twbasketcaseat Mississippi Personhood Amendment

Originally posted by gabrielleabelleat Mississippi Personhood Amendment

Okay, so I don't usually do this, but this is an issue near and dear to me and this is getting very little no attention in the mainstream media.

Mississippi is voting on November 8th on whether to pass Amendment 26, the "Personhood Amendment". This amendment would grant fertilized eggs and fetuses personhood status.

Putting aside the contentious issue of abortion, this would effectively outlaw birth control and criminalize women who have miscarriages. This is not a good thing.

Jackson Women's Health Organization is the only place women can get abortions in the entire state, and they are trying to launch a grassroots movement against this amendment. This doesn't just apply to Mississippi, though, as Personhood USA, the group that introduced this amendment, is trying to introduce identical amendments in all 50 states.

What's more, in Mississippi, this amendment is expected to pass. It even has Mississippi Democrats, including the Attorney General, Jim Hood, backing it.

The reason I'm posting this here is because I made a meager donation to the Jackson Women's Health Organization this morning, and I received a personal email back hours later - on a Sunday - thanking me and noting that I'm one of the first "outside" people to contribute.

So if you sometimes pass on political action because you figure that enough other people will do something to make a difference, make an exception on this one. My RSS reader is near silent on this amendment. I only found out about it through a feminist blog. The mainstream media is not reporting on it.

If there is ever a time to donate or send a letter in protest, this would be it.

What to do?

- Read up on it. Wake Up, Mississippi is the home of the grassroots effort to fight this amendment. Daily Kos also has a thorough story on it.

- If you can afford it, you can donate at the site's link.

- You can contact the Democratic National Committee to see why more of our representatives aren't speaking out against this.

- Like this Facebook page to help spread awareness.

Comments

And stupid too

[goldenmug.livejournal.com]

I remember someone pointing out (don't remember where) that this has all sorts hidden gotchas.

For example - if personhood is granted to a foetus before the woman has any chance of knowing that she is pregnant (pre-implantation FFS), then all sorts of things follow.

Suppose you don't trust women (which clearly the framers of this sort of law think you can't). You don't take their word for it that they are not pregnant. You have to assume (in a health and safety culture) that you might be dealing with a mother plus a small child.

At what age is women still of childbearing age? Given early puberty and medical advances say 10-51 (remember the Brazilian girl pregnant with twins by her stepfather - age 9). Then you have to assume that every woman of childbearing age (hereafter WCBA single and plural) might be pregnant. Even nuns might be lying and a woman carrying a tiny baby around in sling might have borrowed it.

So now you have all that cohort who, it must be assumed, might be not one person, but two. And one of those two is going to be under age. For everything.

So "adults only" swimming sessions (do you have those?) No WCBA. Adult films? Drinking? Employment law - where can you employ the under-5s, or a woman who carries a 6-month old baby with her wherever she goes?

I presume the WCBA can vote for herself, but foetal personhood (however established) is sure going to mess up the census counts. Unless, of course they discount the WCBA and just count the possible potential foetuses.

And then there's lifts (elevators) - they have a limit to how many persons can be carried; ditto buses.

And all because that amendment makes it necessary to assume that restrictions apply not just to women who are pregnant, but to any woman who might be pregnant, but doesn't know it yet.

If you don't trust a woman to behave responsibly, then it could easily apply to women who KNOW they are NOT pregnant, but can't prove it to a bus driver. Perhaps a woman over that age (whatever it is) should have an ID card certifying that she cannot be pregnant (the menopause card!) to replace the one that says you're old enough to drink - since alcohol damages the person you might be hosting.

I saw a comment from one doctor that personhood status for foetuses would be enormously beneficial, because that way drinking during pregnancy would become child abuse, and he hated what foetal alcohol syndrome did to babies.

Someone else pointed out that it might mean the end of IVF as we know it, since any "surplus" embryos could not be destroyed (homicide) even if they were severely damaged (ADA), and couldn't even be frozen as that would count as child abuse.

Some of this certainly sounds far-fetched (and yes, I have read "The Handmaid's Tale") and surely the law-makers would have the sense to frame the law so as to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls. But with such a barmy law, there would be lots of unintended consequences and it would be a cornucopia of possibilities for the lawyers.

Re: And stupid too

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

I think the framers of this law aren't thinking at all. Once it gets into practical considerations, law enforcement just won't put up with it. Imagine the carpool lane issues. (This is a big deal in California. One thing you don't want to do is mess with commuters.)