Photo by Sara Schreiber
As seen on the road from Tupelo to Oxford, Mississippi
Personhood Amendments, where they've been tried, tend to fail. That's because defining personhood as beginning at fertilization comes with unintended consequences, like outlawing popular forms of birth control and making IVF a lot more complicated. Can embryos in an IVF clinic inherit property? If you crash your bike and miscarry, is that a crime?
Cristen Hemmins was one of two plaintiffs who sued to stop the Personhood Amendment from going to referendum. The Mississippi Supreme Court said last week that the measure can go forward, and so far the campaign to defeat it amounts to a Facebook page. The vote's in November. "It's an uphill battle, and we're not helped by the fact that we've got seven weeks to educate the entire state of Mississippi," says Hemmins. Mississippi remains a place where politics and religion are not always separate ideas.
Hemmins is not officially part of the campaign, Mississippians for Healthy Families, but she's telling her story to anyone who'll listen. Yesterday, she posted an open letter to Lieutenant Phil Bryant, who co-chairs the Yes on 26 campaign. She writes:
"Dear Mr. Bryant--I know I may as well be shouting into the wind, since you are a vocal proponent of Initiative 26, and a religious right Republican in Mississippi. But I felt the need to at least have you tell me to my face (sadly via e-mail) why you would force me to bear a child when I was raped.
"I am working closely with the campaign to educate Mississippians about the Personhood Initiative--Mississippians for Healthy Families (the campaign is not even fully launched yet--the website is almost complete). I was one of the two plaintiffs who sued the state of Mississippi over this amendment, and we only launched the campaign last week after the MS Supreme Court made its ruling.
"I joined the campaign last year because I was abducted, raped and shot twice as a escaped 20 years ago by two young men on a carjacking spree. I was taking a semester at Millsaps in 1991--I graduated from Vanderbilt, but came home to Jackson to be near a boyfriend. They were two teenagers who had crossed the road from Brinkley and hidden under a weeping willow by my dorm. I managed to escape after they had me for a couple of hours, and ran to a gas station nearby; they wheeled around in my car and even fired three times into the station before taking off. They were both caught within a few days, took a plea bargain, and are in Parchman for 25 years without parole (the one in charge actually escaped with a murderer in 1993 and made it to Oklahoma before being re-caught, so he'll probably be in for even longer).
"All this to say, when I heard that Personhood USA was bringing the battle to outlaw birth control and overturn Roe vs. Wade from Colorado to Mississippi, I wanted to do whatever I could to stop them. If Initiative 26 had been in place 20 years ago, and I had gotten pregnant, I would have had no options. I am not sure my body could have withstood a pregnancy--one of the bullets actually went through my uterus, and in and out of my colon several times. I know that I would not have wanted to bear that child.
"Initiative 26 would have a myriad implications and extreme consequences for women and families in Mississippi. Passage of I26 would create a MASSIVE EXPANSION OF THE DEPENDENT, WELFARE STATE--big government and entitlements spiraling out of control. Really, it is so much more than abortion, and I would hope that our Lt. Gov. would be clever enough to see this. It's all political posturing, when it comes down to it. To the detriment of our state.
"Sincerely,
"Cristen Hemmins
She says she hasn't heard back from the lieutenant governor yet.
Leave a Comment:
I live in Mississippi and I'm actively engaging all rational minded people to consider ALL of the social, political and ECONOMIC ramifications of this vote (not just the religious ones).
We've got a lively debate going on, in which I am hopefully mobilizing people to be vocal about this issue and affect the outcome.
the equation that I am attempting to put forth looks like this:
MS: highest teen pregnancy rate + lowest literacy rate + high poverty rate + abstinence only sex education - funding for education and early childcare services = an increased population of poor, hungry, uneducated people
the debate rages:
https://www.facebook.com/matt.doman/posts/10150297182161964
Sorry about your plight in Mississippi but I hope this passes and they enforce it vigorously. Enforce it with jail time.
Gradually people will see what a hell-hole the fringe right wants us all to live in. If the people of Mississippi want to live in a third-world country called Mississippi then let's let them go down that road.
We can all watch and see what the fringe right are REALLY talking about.
David,
It's easy to wish terrible violence and opression on someone who is not you in the hopes that people get the point, but those of us who are at the barrel end of laws like these would rather not go to jail.
@David Gagne" Sorry about your plight in Mississippi but I hope this passes and they enforce it vigorously."
Really, that's too bad! We've already got enough dumbed down religuluos sheeple in America (think: tea-potty)!! It is so much easier to attempt to educate people as to the dangers of this legislation than to try and get it overturned once it is law!! Truth is these people need to see their own hypocrisy for what it is: low literacy = low pay = high birthrate = high rates of welfare/unemployment!!
And how many of those screeching "pro-life" are standing on line for foster care/adoption?! Hypocrisy thy name is rethugnikan!
We have seen it. We don't need to repeat it to see it in action. All we have to do is look at the news record of the last century, and read the history of the two centuries before that. We have come a long way, and the radical right (who are mostly elite, manipulating the uninformed and misinformed) wants to take us back to the days when everyone's lives were controlled by an elite few. So you can sit on your hands and let this happen. Or you can join the struggle that has been going on for generations and help keep our nation a free democracy that protects its citizens from state-sanctioned control (remember the Consitution?). It's the poor and misinformed who will bear the brunt of your cruel "experiment".
Clearly the personhood folks want to implement The Handmaid's Tale in real life.
But I don't care if the ChristoFacists see their own hypocrisy.
What I see happening is a great flight away from tea party cesspool sates to states that live in the 21st century.
Think about it - would you want to live in Texas?
EXACTLY what I was thinking!
Dayle
I'm involved all right. But when I read there is NO organized opposition to this in Mississippi...
I prefer to pick my battles and this one doesn't seem like one that is win-able.
So, with my sympathies to the innocent and the non-morons, I hope it passes and Mississippi becomes a shining example of what not to do.
as Rachel linked to above, there is this group:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mississippians-For-Healthy-Families/239937066041681
which, since my awareness of it through this post, has gained over 100 "likes" (though I'm not claiming responsibility for them all) and the organized and rational response and debate that has continued throughout the day, including dissemination of facts and real-life consequences of this type of legislation, I believe there is hope for us.
I have often thought about moving to a more progressive state, but in this case, I feel like I am on the frontlines of a fight, not to advance a "liberal agenda" or "make the world into a utopia" but just to simply keep our society from being dragged inexorably backwards. I haven't completely given up on moving forwards, but for now, I'll settle for not sliding back.
Is this really Matt Damon? I heard you were running for President.
Sorry - couldn't resist.
More power to you. I wish you good luck and salute you and your efforts.
California could use someone like you.
also, in the likely event that referring to someone as a "ChristoFascist" fails to get your point across when debating this issue, may I recommend this presentation for suggestions on a more nuance and hopefully effective approach:
http://prezi.com/nxmk8dllj4oa/reproductive-health-values-information-effective-communication/
David,
I actually actively campaigned for President, from 2001-2004, for the 2016 election, which will be the first one I'm eligible in. I admit with regret that I have abandoned my presidential aspirations, but the fire that fuels my passionate views on these issues still burns.
Remember Me . Matt Doman . 2016
Isn't is something that the far right complain about abortion but do not want to provide for the poor, provide a good education, and good health care because it cost money. They want less government to regulate corporations, but more government to regulate women. It is not a matter of religion. God did not even stop Cain from killing Abel. He did not even sentence Cain with death. So, it is as if they want to be more righteous than God. They want to strip people from the God given free will, but give corporations more right to be abusive and destroy the water we drink and the air we breath. In some states people are not even allowed to collect rain water. Someone already own the rain that falls. Mr. Barbour, is in cahoots with oil drilling companies and taking the property from regular citizens away, (not buying it from them) to give it to the oil drilling company. How contradictory they are. behaving immorally behind their base backs and being so hypocritical when it comes to abortion claiming Christianity.
Sadly, your statistics about your state make it clear that there are very few rational people who are interested in looking at the entire impact of this legislation. It's just politics is ignorant, as usual.
So proud of her for speaking out! We need more people to explain what horribleness this is!!
This is so heartbreaking. I wish that people would have more compassion towards their fellow humans and less hate towards their decision making. I fear for the rights of women in the south.
You're so right Laura -- and as a Southern woman, I fear for the rights of many others too. The legislature of my state of North Carolina has just voted today to put a "marriage is one man and one woman" amendment to our state constitution up for a vote in May -- when every right winger is sure to be out voting in the Republican primary. It is demeaning and disgusting. This comes a few months after they passed (and overrode our governor's veto of) a terrible abortion bill. The midterm elections were a complete disaster here and I just pray people will see the damage and vote these people out asap.
If personhood begins at fertilization, does that mean that a pregnant woman cannot be incarserated - even if convicted of a crime - because it would be illegal to incarserate her unborn child - less the fetus were also convicted and sentenced.
Well, if the fetus was too lazy to call the police when it witnessed the crime, it deserves to be locked up as an accessory to the crime.
Holy ****, we are reentering the dark ages. Why do we have to sink into such a deep hole to appease extremists of the Christian variety?
If "extremists of the Christian variety" were the sole demographic supporting such laws, we wouldn't be having this debate. Such folks are hardly a majority. Anti-choice sentiments must be pretty widespread across the electorate, given the way reproductive rights are being whittled away, little by little.
I live in Ohio and am constantly learning from the media that my state elected Bush in 2004. (Of course, Bush stole the state--or, rather, his pal J. Kenny Blackwell stole it for him.) And my response is that Ohio is only one of 50 states, all of which also voted for or against Bush. Only via completely circular reasoning can Ohio be accused of electing Bush. I think we're committing the same revolving-door thinking when we credit/blame a tiny group for a widespread political and social trend. The problem is that we have a voting public which leans right. So far, our only response on the left is that such voters need "more science education."
Colorado has defeated this obscene proposal twice. But then, Colorado is not, thank goodness, Mississippi.
We have a fairly well educated workforce. Yet, ironically, Colorado ranks 49th in the nation for dollars spent on children's education. Bet our workforce won't stay educated for long....
There is a belief in the far right fundie circles of the 'Children of Abraham' religions, that if a woman is raped, it is because she has displeased God. Also, what worth she had as a 'vessel' for her male owner's seed, is now destroyed, and if she is at all virtuous and good, she will kill herself. While it is not at the top of the media release, this attitude is the 'great unspoken' reason why it's 'okay' to target women: If they were 'Godly' and 'Good' women, submitting to the 'protection' of their husbands and fathers, then nothing would happen to them, so when it does, they are guilty, and thus must 'reap the wages of their sin'. No joke, I've heard this kind of thing explained to survivors with my own two ears.
You are completely correct. Usually, these women are accused of being too worldly and not being modest and the poor man just could not exercise any self control.
It's disgusting.
Just another excuse to control women.
And another excuse to excuse men.
i've heard of that a number of times in extremist islamic cultures as well. netflix had a really good movie called "bliss" and that was the central issue through the whole thing. it was really sad, but it ended really well.
If personhood begins at fertilization, can you incarserate a pregnant woman? Unless the fetus were convicted of a crime and sentenced to incarseration - wouldn't incarserating the mother violate the rights of the fetus?
What do you do with a pregnant, 17 year old rape victim who is in a coma and doesn't have healthcare? But the two month old rapists fetus is okay. That's quite a problem for the nutball right. It kind of pits their fanatical religious desire to preserve unborn "life" no matter what against their neanderthal indifference to it, both of which coexist in them at the same time.
But it's their right to carry a gun and blow away anyone they want to.
Just another example of the hypocritical right wing and the inept progressive movement. They love life so much that they kill prisoners with the death penalty and will shot you if you trespass on their land and that you should not have to have health insurance and if something happens and you don't have the insurance and will die without treatment then you should have gotten insurance. since you didn't you will die and the government should not make it so you have to have insurance to cover you medical bills. I guess next they will repeal all the mandates to have auto insurance in case you get in a wreck right.
Let's not return to the dark ages again.
I would not call the outlawing of popular forms of birth control an unintended consequence. I think it is a very much intended consequence. These groups feel that popular birth control forms, such as the pill and IUD, go against the literal word of the Bible. The Bible, per their interpretation, mandates that the womb be open. And apparently that women should have as many children as God intended. And should remain a homemaker, submissive to her husband, and home school.
This is exactly what these people want us all to return to. Biblical patriarchy.
That's a great point.
The Supreme Court cases that established the right to privacy which includes the right to use contraception date back to the early 1960's. Before those cases, all contraceptives were outlawed in some states. Mississippi is trying to turn back the clock on people's rights which includes men as well as women. Welcome back to your past.
To answer Kale in Cali: that's an interesting question. My guess is that the courts would find a way to answer yes, you can incarcerate the mother as long as the fetus is not subjected to any conditions that would substantially differ from what it would experience if its mother were outside of a jail. The fetus is within the protection of its mother's womb whether incarcerated or free, and you could argue that it doesn't directly experience the punishment of personal restriction that its mother feels. But you could also argue it the other way: a fetus is affected by its mother's environment insofar as any stress she feels impacts her health, and therefore the fetus's health. If the food in the prison is of poor nutritional value, the fetus suffers as a result. And, of course, a child born in prison is immediately being subject to unlawful confinement and must be released at once... but removing the child from the mother violates the child's right to the association with and protection of its natural parent. So either way, you're punishing the child for the sin of its parent, which is unjust.
In the end, I guess it would boil down to which lawyer argued more effectively on behalf of fetuses everywhere... and whether the judge or jury is predisposed to extend greater compassion to fetuses than they are to mothers. Because we've already seen just how much compassion there is for mothers in Mississippi.
They send pregnant women to prison now, so it would not make any difference whatsoever in how the fetus is regarded. Some prisons have parenting programs and nurseries for babies so that they do not have to be separated from their mothers.
But now, Dayle, a fetus is not considered a person. If 26 passes, it will be considered a person and thus entitled to all of the rights granted to other persons, like . . . say . . . Exxon.
Dayle, when a pregnant woman is about to give birth, they are usually brought to a hospital outside of the prison. That's because most states have a law stating that children shall be born free of chains or to that effect. And while some prisons do have a special wing for mothers and their child (Bedford Hills in NY was the first such program), they have definite time limits for how long they can keep their child AND they have requirements that have to be met before they can get into that program to begin with. And finally, damskippy is correct in that no state right now has a law that says a fetus is a person from the time of conception. This law is a dangerous one and the consequences have not been thoroughly thought out.
I hear your call, I know your need. I am the survivor of Martial Sexual Assault which resulted in a pregnancy. I am Pro-Choice, but under that reserve the right to have my personal choice. I chose to keep the baby I carried from the violence which nearly destroyed me. She is a beautiful woman today. I made the choice I could live with. In Colorado there is an rule in the sexual assault laws which no longer give husbands a shield of marital status as defense. Mine was the test case in 1992. The State prevailed. We must move this forward along with this case in MIssissippi. It is important to give women the right to choose. To return to them, the power given by the laws of the land and humanity. Anyone seeing it another way has simply never walked the walk. Those who have will tell you we need to protect the woman first.
I agree, Christine. I'm pro-choice. That to me means I believe a woman has the right to decide for herself, not have the decision made before she even gets to an event that might make it a necessity. I feel sorry for the women living in Mississippi if this actually becomes law. But then again, there are those women who will vote for it.
Sadly, I have a feeling that Mr. Bryant will not be moved by Cristen's heartfelt letter.
The Yes on 26 supporters say that, because humans were created in the image of God, humans are sacred. They equate abortion with blasphemy. End of discussion, in their minds. There is no room for debate. God also created the universe in six days, and rested on the seventh. Don't tell them otherwise. They will label you a heathen. Don't tell them that a zygote has not yet attained personhood. They get cranky, contentious and loud, and threaten litigation or political maneuverings. Don't get all socially statistical on them either. They put their hands over their ears and chant, "La, la, la, laaah." Histrionic, yet irritatingly effective.
In my opinion, there is no debate.
It is rabid, radical, religious zealots who see the world narrowly and only according to their Bible......
And the rest of us, who see the world realistically.
Since scripture is literally a "graven image", scriptural literalism is literally Idolatry.
Although we consider our country a "Judeo Christian" land, we took the steps to separate church and state in the writing of our Constitution. Blasphemy is not a crime in any state in our union, and forcing religious doctrine onto the law is unconstitutional on its face. We don't need to consider real, if unusual, circumstances, such as pregnancy resulting from rape or fertilized eggs inheriting property (not even fetuses-IVF eggs would also by this definition be "persons"), to acknowledge that this law and others like it violate the central principles of our constitution. The legality of issue 26 will be decided by the courts, and will rest on the definition of person.
I just want to point out as well that in the Bible, it's only men who are created in the image of God. Women are created in the image of men. That's why, according to Corinthians, women should be ashamed of having short hair, because they are made in the image of men and should hide themselves. Men should be ashamed if they have long hair, because they were made in the image of God.
I remember reading that in a Bible study in 7th or 8th grade, and along with my pastor who was ranting that women should never be principals of schools, because women should never have power over men, I've really never understood how people can say that religion, and least the fundamentalist religion, isn't sexist.
if you commit a crime while pregnant is the fetus an accomplice?
It was there with you and didn't try to stop you, right? Don't see why not.
I am a conservative and I find initiative 26 to be a violation of individual freedom. I don't believe that anyone should make such a choice for another individual. This is also one of the cases in which I feel it would be a benefit to this girl to have a fund set up to help her out. However, I don't think the American public should pay for recreational abortions. You party You pay.
What the @!$%# is a "recreational abortion"?
I think she is taking a shot at women who use abortion as the sole means of birth control, which I think that even the pro choice side will agree is inappropriate.
That being said, abortions being used as the sole method of birth control is quite rare.
I cannot describe the anger I feel when I read or hear phrases like "recreational abortions". Yes, it is true, there are a few individuals that do use this procedure as birth control, but this is not a widespread issue. I would also assume that in the majority of these cases, it is b/c these women are not educated about their options, or do not have access to the options that many of us consider accessible.
Enough with the you party, you pay bullsh*t. If a girl parties too hard then is subsequently raped and impregnated, if there is an atom in your body that feels "she deserved it", than I'm not sure any rational thought can persuade you otherwise.
And by the way, I don't think anyone is in the position to say what the American public should/should not pay for. We pay for what's in the best interest of our community. I don't like paying for churches to have tax-free status, but I do.
Or men could just stop having sex and then there wouldn't be "recreational abortions." Why is this never discussed?
The American Public should pay for the summary execution of rapists.
Agree wholeheartedly with you there!
So, the pro-life position is that all must suffer because a few abuse the system. Sounds like the same rationale used by the right when discussing welfare or immigration.
You party you pay applies to men too. The point is be responsible. If your not going to take the time to be responsible, then why should anyone else have to take responsibility for what you shirk?
I am 100% pro choice. I just think if you have the right to choose you have the right to pay. If you didn't have the choice then we should help you out. ( start by bricking the SOB that committed the rape).
No federal funding goes to pay for abortions chem. Stop being hyperbolic.
Nothing like a recreational abortion to top off a picnic and a day at the amusement park.
you pay for tax free status? How much? Probably just as much as you do for Oil subsidies. Nothing. Not one cent comes out of your pocket for these things. Most churches put more back into the community than they take. I would say if anything they have it right. Churches pass around a dish and you can choose to pay or not. They then take that money and pay a pastor and his family to live, he takes the left overs and helps his community. You don't like what he does then don't pay. At least I have a choice, with the State they tell me to pay whether I like it or not.
If a woman gets drunk and then some man gets her pregnant. I would say that is closer to rape than anything else. That situation is absolutly not the womans fault. To the scumbag that knocked her up, he is resposible and should pay, he should also learn to be a man, because a real man takes resposabily for all of his actions. If he won't then I say we let the lady he knocked up brick him.
yes Federal funding does go to abortions. Just because Pres Obama said it on TV does't make it true.
You are a scientist you said and yet you never provide evidence for any of the assertions that you make. Again for such an elitist person as you consistently insist you are, you lack for substance. Please provide any evidence to the contrary otherwise I will point to you the specific laws in existence that prohibit federal funding for abortion. Just because Fox News says otherwise doesn't make it true, chem.
@chemdmd-that's the same sort of math that says tax cuts don't cost anything. I'll try to break it down for you. My property taxes pay for things for the community. If there are X number of churches in said community, they do not contribute anything, so I pay more. If those churches contributed, I would pay less. Savy?
Secondly, I would like to see some numbers that back up this assertion that most churches put more back into the community than they take.
Thirdly, bricking people? Nice.
To adequately debate them, you HAVE to understand where they are coming from: they believe that at the moment of fertilization, a human being is created and imbued by God with a unique soul. Honestly, if you believed this, wouldn't you also be radically pro-life? How could you not be?
We have to convince them that their position is a theological & philosophical one to which honest people can disagree, and that ultimately it is a question not to be determined by the government because the first amendment does not allow them to interfere with it.
That is the essence of Roe and is still the crux of success or failure.
They may believe that the soul is attached to the body at the moment of fertilization, but there is ZERO scripture to back this up.
There is scripture to back up that the soul enters the body AT THE MOMENT OF THE CHILD'S FIRST BREATH.
There is also scripture that IMPLIES, that God has a soul prepared for every person, at the beginning of "time", long before fertilization.
Both of these possibilities have mind-blowing implications for the conservative "pro-life" worldview. Too bad none of them, apparently, have actually cracked-open and read a freaking Bible. The Bible doesn't say jack squat anywhere about souls and fertilization. I challenge ANY pro-lifer to yield chapter and verse that says it does - straight-up. Never did, never will. Sorry, literalists.
I used to believe this, and I was still pro-choice. I was horribly judgemental about it ("on their own heads be their sins", yadda yadda). But I wasn't so illogical, tyrannical, or plain stupid enough to believe other people should do with their bodies what *I* thought they should. This was when I was 13, by the way.
If a grade schooler can figure out the concepts of bodily autonomy and "not everyone thinks the same as me", these people have no excuse.
Hey, your leaving science out. What do scientist say?
I'm FOR this amendment, NATIONALLY, if we also:
1. Attach a clause banning corporate personhood.
2. Attach a clause, guaranteeing that all fertilized embryos have a right to healthcare, clean air, water, healthy food, postsecondary education, equal protection under the law, access to a job, and "JUSTICE".
Honestly, if those two clauses were added, and enforced, there would be no reason to be concerned about abortion rights. The most effective birth control known in the history of human civilization, is FEMALE LITERACY. This is why birth rates are on the decline in modern, industrialized societies.
We're concerning ourselves more over what is RIGHT than what is probably more effective at providing lasting equality and empowerment for more women, in the long-run, in our society.
This would have a better outcome in mitigating the rape/incest issue, because empowered women, in a society that values human life OUTSIDE the womb, will be less likely to become victims.
I don't have an answer for cases where abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the mother. That is the flaw in my argument. I am not insensitive to women's reproductive rights. I am just pointing out the irony of the Conservative position; labeled "pro-life" - yet, seemingly placing a higher value on CAPITAL (ie. corporate persons) than post-born lives, (women, and men who are already born).
If we're defining personhood, and attempting to enshrine it as a sacred thing to be endowed with "rights" . . . let us take care to do this right this time. We have already screwed this up twice.
I would tweak #2 a little. Should add that all fertilized embryos pre and post birth have a right to healthcare, clean air, ....
Does that take care of the entire lifetime of a human being?
The "reason" to be concerned about abortion rights is that the owner of a uterus decides what gets to stay there. Ensuring good Lebensraum for all those hypothetical babies is nice but doesn't have a damn thing to do with the fundamental question of freedom. How about the next time you want to point out ironies in the conservative position you don't do it by erasing people capable of childbirth? B/c the real irony there is that's exactly what the fundies do.
I think it is very brave of her to share her story and for all the right reasons. To stand up for what she believes in and educate others who may have over looked certain things. no matter your beliefs, you can agree it was brave of her to share her experience.
So, if life begins at conception, won't all our birthdays have to be recalculated, as will our retirement dates?Won't millions of dollars more in benefits people have been cheated out of since they were alive 9 extra months have to be paid? Will the laws regarding drinking, smoking, and voting -- or any age-related matter-- be changed? This is stupid. You have to have a standard, and the standard seems sort of clear. Or is this just too simplistic to make sense?
How would we determine our conception dates? Mothers and their obstetricians classically struggle with that very question. They usually guesstimate. How can we legitimately sing "Happy Conception Day to You" when we can't even determine the actual day?
The Pilgrims fled their world for the New World to escape from religious persecution and that is the foundation for the USA being a country where one is "free" to practice the religion of your choice or no religion. The only way to be a religiously free country - or another way to say it is "free FROM religious tyranny" is to separate church and state. And that is what we have had - until now.
I find these laws that have their basis in one version of one religion to be religious tyranny and counter to freedom from religious persecution and definitely mixing church and state. Why can't these laws be defeated on this basis?
Religious persecution is unconstitutional - to use a favorite phrase - although Teapublicants deny it's in the constitution, how can judges ignore it?
I'm so tired of hearing what "God said." Whether he did or didn't say it, I don't recall him running for election to any legislative body of the government of the USA. So it doesn't matter what he said in YOUR version of YOUR bible.
It's an interesting historical fact that the Puritans who came seeking religious freedom were religiously very intolerant of those who didn't believe as they did. Maryland was settled by Irish Catholics driven out by the English, North Carolina by Scots Highlander Catholics, Pennsylvania by Quakers. This need for asylum from religious intolerance was EXACTLY why we have no official state religion. You are right. The Founding Fathers wanted NO official religious interference in Gov't and they were so RIGHT!! Religion does nothing but divide people.
"Why can't these laws be defeated on this basis?"
For one thing, because opponents of abortion aren't necessarily religious. For another, a "pro-life" position is not necessarily a religious one. (I'm religious and pro-choice, by the way.)
As for "religious persecution" being unconstitutional, I assume you're referring to the separation of church and state. Well, the First Amendment also gives us separation of state and press, not to mention state and speech. By your standard of evidence, we have to conclude that our founders considered a free press and free speech dangerous to our democracy. Why else would they have erected a wall between them and the state?
I personally think that any state that receives more Fed money than they pay in taxes should not be allowed to pass any legislation. They should be forced to follow the same set of state laws from their nearest non-moneypit state-until they get their s++t together and are no longer a drain on the rest of the country. IIRC, Mississippi leads the list of deadbeat states; or at least is close to the top(bottom?). Morons should not be allowed to make their own laws.
In Missisippi, when you order fried chicken at a diner, you can legally be served two eggs over easy.
This issue has just reminded me of The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. The book seems to be about the oppression of women. But it shows clearly the truth of the statement "None are free as long as any are oppressed." (Wish I knew who I am quoting.)
I hope the bill fails. Why does the right want to take whatever rights women and gained over the last 100yrs away from us? I can't have an abortion. Hysterectomy. I personally choose NOT to abort. Having said that, I have no right to decide what someone else's choice should be. As has been said before, Who is going to provide for all these "persons"? There is a scripture about a splinter in ur bro's eye. Paraphrased to death, but here goes...Why are u worried about the splinter in ur bro's eye? Wouldn't it be better to get the LOG out of your own eye first?, then u can better see the splinter in ur bro's eye. It's easy to point fingers at those who "aren't our kind" and say THEY are totally wrong bc they don't see EVERYTHING as we do. The bible clearly states that those who profess to be Christians are held to higher standard. If we stumble those who don't know Christ, we are sooooo in trouble with our God and Creator. Jesus didn't HATE sinners. But he DID hate the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of his time. Not to preach, but MAN.