The people fighting for reproductive rights in Mississippi tell us they don't have much money. They're up against Issue 26, which would assign personhood to every fertilized egg. The measure would immediately outlaw abortion in Mississippi, along with common forms of birth control and likely IVF treatments.
If the national personhood movement can get this done in Mississippi next month, then they're on the table nationwide.
Without much for spending on billboards or commercials, the pro-choice side has been doing this one themselves, in their own way. Now the very grassroots Parents Against MS 26 has its own video, telling their own stories. Whatever happens in November, these folks are trying.
Leave a Comment:
This was extremely moving. Sadly these legislators think every issue is black & white. That's just not the case. It never is.
Find the part you can make up your mind about - and speak for that.
Being able to see both sides of an issue is an asset, not something to be squashed. It allows us to understand the other side to a degree - even if we disagree with them. That's something which has been lost in this country and around the world, and it's something we all desperately need to be able to get along together.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision respects both sides of the arbortion argument. It allows each woman to choose, or not to choose, an abortion for herself. The Court was wise enough to acknowledge the social derisiveness of the issue, and diplomatically settled it with freedom of choice, a core American value.
I meant divisive, not derisive. Apologies.
Well, no IVF is going to piss off a lot of infertile christians who want to believe that this is medicine god gave them...
Interesting how these people pick and choose. I've actually tried to hold conversations with them about how, if they think infertility treatments are gifts from god, they must therefore consider birth control, abortion, cloning, etc., to be gifts from god as well.
They can't accept that. They reject it utterly. It's fun to watch them tie themselves into logic knots.
It's not fun to watch christian republicans who have been voted into public office using their powers to enforce their own agenda and exercise their own private demons (no, they don't exorcise their demons, they just move them to a new parish).
It's not even that black-and-white, these are the same people who will quickly and quietly whisk their teenage daughter off for an abortion because they believe that her situation is "special" and that "she isn't like those other sluts getting abortions" and then be happily off protesting that same clinic the next week.
Google "When the anti-choice choose" for some truly mind-boggling reading sometime.
LOL, so catholic women use abortion as birth control since they can't use birth control as birth control?
And everyone is special and no one else understands...Wow.
Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.
Peanut, as a Catholic woman, way beyond childbearing age, who minored in Theology, had 16 years of Catholic education, and attended the Archdiocese of Denver Biblical school, I am appalled at what is happening about abortion in my church, and in our politics. Even two fathers of the Church, St. Augustan, and St. Thomas Aquinas disagreed on when an egg became a person. A Pope prior to Pope John Paul ll was in favor of allowing artificial birth control but was talked out of it by two high ranking Cardinals. And the church allowed exceptions in abortion cases for rape and if the mother's life was in danger way back when. Now, the CC and the Evangelicals are on the same page. The late Cardinal Bernadine of Chicago had the seamless garment on the question of life, that is from birth to death life should be valued. This may seem like a conspiracy theory on my part but I wonder if it has to do with declining birth rates among whites, and the "browning" of the planet's populations at least among some politicians.
Well, Kathy, you would certainly have the perspective on this issue. I've actually studied, and/or lived through the events you've mentioned, and have a number of catholic friends, so I've also had the opportunity to debate these issues, and even change some minds.
You are not the first to suggest your conspiracy theory. Add to that the old guard growing increasingly fearful in a changing world, and a religious edict to 'go ye forth, be fruitful and multiply', and you've got a hot little stew brewing. Throw a lot of money at it, and the whole thing ignites, grows legs and escapes the pot!
Okay, I must have a book cooking, because my imagery is growing increasingly fanciful!
RE: Kathy and her conspiracy theory
www.thenation.com/article/158981/war-womens-futures
Mouzer, I've read articles along these lines. It always seems like a paranoid fantasy until seen in black and white...
I want my country back! The one before europeans showed up with blankets infected by small pox...
Mississippi cannot outlaw all abortions because they cannot overturn the SCOTUS ruling by legislation. They can try to restrict it, but even some of those are unconstitutional. I would not extrapolate the passage of a bill in Mississippi to the whole country. Republicans have been beating the abortion drum for a couple decades along with the issue of gay marriage. The latter is losing its effectiveness as a campaign issue so that leaves only abortion. This means that the abortion issue will get a lot more attention by both sides and there will be push back.
These measures are developed and being put on ballots around the country explicitly because they will likely lead to a direct challenge of Roe v Wade.
Even if our grassroots work manages to cover enough ground in MS to get voters to say no, a similar measure is coming to a state near you soon. (Unless you're from Colorado where folks have voted against it twice).
Maybe Roe v. Wade needs to be challenged in the SCOTUS in order to get pro-choice energized again.
I am curious as to how/why it is that some of the very same people who were terrified of death panels are also for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. If anyone wants to explain the logic to me please do. If we are afraid of the idea of government repealing our right to medical privacy and medical decisions then why would we want Roe vs. Wade to be overruled?
The answer is quite Biblical: "It all depends on whose ox is gored." Or, to put it another way, both positions are defined by the people they will cause the most trouble (generally Democrats.)
Abortion is a campaign issue which garners a lot of fundamentalist support because they purportedly follow strict sexual conduct rules. These people believe that pregnancy should be a punishment on unwed mothers. And they don't care if women die getting abortions because that is also a punishment. Medical decisions and privacy are irrelevant to fundamentalists. They abhor unwed pregnancies and gay people, but seem to overlook that adultery is the most prevalent sexual misconduct under their religious code. They are more willing to forgive adultery because it is so common, but not abortion or gay sexual conduct which pale in comparison to adultery. The fundamentalists believe that God parses sexual sins.
So then I am correct in thinking the logic is contradictory?
Hypocritical and contradictory describe their views.
More like, "what logic?"
Seriously, if you don't read anything else this year read Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
I wish this blog had that link in the sidebar, it's that relevant to damn near everything.
It's perfectly logical if you use a fantasy-based frame to make the argument. In the real world it's easily recognizable as the nonsense it is.
I linked to this in another topic, but it bears reposting. Herman Cane last week on Fox took contradictory positions on abortion in the course of a single interview. He maintains in turns that no one should be free to terminate a pregnancy, that terminating a pregnancy is a woman's choice rather than the government's if she has been raped, and that abortion should be prohibited without exceptions. He maintains that his position is "Real clear."
Via ThinkProgress: thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/18/346530/after-confusing-himself-cain-decides-that-rape-victims-should-be-forced-to-carry-pregnancies-to-term/
I am confused. Doesn't Roe v Wade mean anything? I thought when the SCOTUS made a decision, it was sacrosanct.
What did conservatives use as social billy clubs before Roe v Wade and same sex marriage? Did they actually have policies back then? If so, that must have been nice. An actual worthy opponent.
SCOTUS decisions are powerful, but not sacrosanct. They can always be overturned by another ruling by the same court later. There have been quite a few such over the years. That's part of why progressives are so upset with some of the most recent conservative additions to the SC: during their confirmation hearings, they said they would be "respectful of precedent"--which means not seeking to overturn established rulings by previous Courts--but instead, there have been several landmark decisions made in the last few years that do exactly that.
The pro-life movement's current big tactic is to push for state-level restrictions that deliberately violate the precedent set by Roe v. Wade with the express intention of getting a legal challenge that will rise to the Supreme Court. They believe that the current configuration of the Court would then use such a case to overturn Roe v. Wade. The fact that a lot of pro-choice activists think so too is why some of those sorts of laws which have already been passed have gone unchallenged.
The right haven't had respect for the courts for a long time. Ever since Brown v. Board, at the very least. Recently, at the so-called Values Voters Summit just past, Newt Gingrich pledged to ignore any judicial decisions he disagreed with. And then there's the general carping about 'activist' judges. Basically, the right feel that the courts are obliged to endorse right-wing positions and do nothing else.
So, no, from the right's point of view Roe v. Wade means nothing. Neither does any decision by the Supreme Court nor any inferior court mean anything if it does not align with right-wing dogma.
So does that mean that a women who miscarries is committing murder?
Manslaughter.
Yes, under this law a woman who miscarries could be charged with a crime.
Criminal investigation of every miscarriage (medically, "spontaneous abortion of pregnancy") has already been proposed in Georgia.
That is just nuts!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone who knows anything at all about reproductive medicine knows that spontaneous abortions occur all the time for no apparent reason. Millions of dollars and lots of time would be wasted trying to determine whether a miscarriage was intentional or natural. Just as I said that is nuts.
... Fill in whatever you like.
Freda, remember that these are the same people who will tell you that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Thank you SO MUCH for posting this video! We are linking as much as we possibly can to get this out. The Parents Against 26 is "grassroots" at its finest. BUT WE ARE FIGHTING! And we beg that every other person who is like minded HELP US. This Amendment is coming to a state near you soon! This is ALL OF OUR FIGHT!
Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you for posting. Folks outside of the Magnolia state can help. Here's how:
a) Talk to your friends and family, tweet, put links on facebook.
b) Consider donating time or a little money see: http://www.votenoon26.org/ &http://parentsagainstms26.com/
The first thought and image that came to my mind was that this is a modern day witch hunt. Plain, simple, and nearly identical. Instead of burning someone at the stake they could sentence them to state sanctioned execution, which is of course legal in too many states now. Probably makes sense to them too, now there is a comforting thought.
What is happening to America. This is not the America I grew up in, and certainly not the America I want my children and grandchildren growing up in. We need to take America back from the so-called christians, who are anything but Christian.
Did you catch the Barney Frank appearance on TRMS last night?
That is crazy that their doing that Rachel. I dont what we would do with out you and your team of researchers. Issue 26 ..I'll try and spread the word. PS You crack me up all the time and cant wait to see what you have for us tonight.
Do the sheeple that want to "pass" this draconian law realize the hypocrisy they live: they want "life" to start at fertilization", yet deny "the living" the ability to "choose" when they want to bear children?!?!
If adopted, would this mean an end to corporate personhood in the state?
(Trying to think of some megacorp based in Mississippi.)
The USA was founded on the principle of "religious freedom" which is not only your freedom to practice the religion of your choice or no religion, but is also "freedom FROM religious tyranny." I, therefore, find it hard to understand how any legislation based on a "religious principle" is consititutional.
Anyone who feels that abortion in any form or for any reason is against their own personal religious or moral beliefs is free to give birth every year if they want. You are/I am not responsible for the choice someone else makes.
If your religion teaches that you stand before God who passes judgment on your choices, then it should follow that you believe the person who has beliefs contrary to your's will be held accountable for their choices. THAT is personal responsibility!
The party that preaches "personal responsibility" when it suits them denies a woman her right to "personal responsiblity" by not allowing her to make her choice and face her own consequences. How can they reconcile this duplicitousness?
Just because some religion somewhere prohibits child rape doesn't make it unConstitutional for states in the USA to ban child rape (to pick an extreme example.)
The Constitution can't do all the heavy lifting. About time we picked up our share of the load, don't you think?
when People start droppi9ng off new borns at hospitals and fire stations and the state has to run Orphan Houses. The Republicans will start screaming about the tax money needed to run these places. Oh well. They have forgotten what it was like when birth control was illegal. Rude awakening about to happen.
Well, of course those irresponsible sluts will have to be punished. That's why the State has to keep all of those expensive private prisons, you know.
Let us not forget about the things that happen when someone is desperate and will feel driven to resort to what used to be called back alley abortions. They also fail to consider the consequences that can occur when a bunch of unwanted, unplanned and unloved persons are in the schools etc. Sometimes an unplanned child is loved and cherished by the parents but sometimes they are just resented and mistreated. Seems to me how many children and when those children are born should be left up to the people who will be responsible for them until they can care for themselves. Since the, shall I say, right leaning people don't want to feed the hungry, help to support the elderly or educate the kids who are already here why should they be meddling in peoples efforts to control the size of their families?
Unintended consequences, just like in prohibition.
Given that we've been here before and there's mountains of data on what the consequences will be (never mind "obvious to the most casual observer") it's pretty clear that those consequences are anything but unintended.
It's nice to know Republicans believe a fertilized egg should have more rights than a human female.
Half of those zygotes are male, you know.
Okay ... hold on. If they're granting personhood to every fertilised egg, then spontaneous miscarriage is murder, and there's no way at all to avoid that, 100%.
Miscarriage is manslaughter. Abortion is murder. According to people who think a fertilized egg should have more rights than a female adult.
But what about the female egg? Does she have no rights at all, since she'll grow up to have fewer rights as a person than she does as an egg??
My brain hurts. Something just cramped. Do I take calcium or potassium for that? Or both?
About 80% of fertilzed eggs never implant, actually. And quite a few after that get rejected by nature's QA system (face it: eukaryotic reproduction is a low-yield process.)
Which explains why Christianity places such emphasis on the sinfulness of women and doesn't trust them with anything important.
Next up: every fertile woman to be required to take a medical exam (at her expense, of course) monthly to make sure that she's not guilty of a felony.
To peanut9000 - try alcohol, it helps the brain to NOT think about this nonsense....
To D.C. Sessions - does that mean women with fertilized eggs that don't implant will be charged with what? Manslaughter or an even lesser charge, like unintentional termination?
And as peanut9000 said, the female fertilized egg has more rights as an egg. Wonder then if it would be possible for the egg to remain in that state to retain all her rights and develop to have less rights as she grows. It would definitely be to her advantage to remain so....if only....
I would assume they would be charged with child neglect, abandonment or endangerment. I would think you could also charge anyone smoking or drinking after fertilization as child abusers and distribution of alcohol/cigarettes to minors.
I wonder what happens to corporations who make products- like pain pills- that end up causing critical harm to the fetus as it develops (like causing deformed limbs, mental retardation, etc). What happens if the mom has to take such medication or undergo such treatments that threaten the fetus with such outcomes? Oh and what about premature births? Shouldn't the mom be punished for giving birth to a child (or having an emergency c-section) before it was capable of living on it's own? Afterall good incubators don't do that.
Great ad and I wish them luck in Mississippi. Unfortunately those on the other side are so rabid and fanatical that they don't care about the very real impact that their proposal would have as illustrated by this ad. Those people really do want women to be subject to investigation for every failed pregnancy, or die rather than treat a nonviable pregnancy. It is all about the literal interpretation of their book of mythical stories (the bible) than it is about individual rights and empathy.
The so called pro-life movement in this country is NOT about protecting life, but about subjugating women. They want the country to go back to the way they think it was in the 50s. If they really cared about women they wouldn't be waging a war on institutions that provide a significant portion of medical services to poor and lower income women.
The subjugating of women is not just about the abortion issue but women's healthcare in general. Remember that with many of the private insurance companies, having had a baby is a pre-existing condition that can cause a woman's healthcare premium to be higher. Having regular exam tests like a PAP Smear to detect early signs of cancer can also be cause for a woman to be labelled with a pre-existing condition. If normal yearly check-ups with standard tests that are widely accepted in the medical community can be a way to label a woman as having pre-existing conditions and making it harder for them to get health insurance, then it's no wonder some women are reluctant to go for the yearly check-up with their doctor until it is nearly too late.
And the subjugating is not being limited to just the health care, but with other social issues as well. What happened to the Republicans promise of concentrating on JOBS in this session of Congress and SMALL GOVERNMENT. The more I read, the more the government seems to grow with these proposed regulations, laws and amendments that get into one's personal life, not leaving the decisions to the individual as they keep promising.
When did this country shift into reverse? I must have missed it.
It started with Richard Milhouse Nixon and the way he shaped the current political landscape. That was 1968-1974. The speed of the reverse has been increasing exponentially in the new millennium.
WOW!! These are probably the same people that want to deregulate Wall Street because government has no place in regulating corporations. It does, however, have a strong place in regulating our personal lives? I am so confused by the right on a daily basis! Do you want government intervention or don't you? Make up your damn mind!! And stay the hell away from my personal life!!!
Assault on the 14th Amendment: "All Persons Born . . ."—Battle Lines Drawn Up
Imagine living in a reproductive police state. China is one.
Now, how would the State of Mississippi sue the fed to provide these embryos with SS#'s? And similarly, will MS change their tax forms to include fetuses as dependents? Will OB/GYNs be required to submit conception certificates to their local health departments?
WIll you get free ice cream or desert twice a year instead of just once? And what might a 22d-century grave marker look like if you were conceived in October?
John Natchezite 2013-2014-2101?
Hey it's MESSissippi!
Herman Cain: "No abortion, under any circumstance." Yeah, Herman, is that because you will have no pregnancy, under any circumstance? Think beyond yourself.
There's a movie script there someplace:
High-profile anti-abortion noisemaker is abducted, drugged. Wakes up some time later with a note attached telling him he's had an embryo implanted in him and that the national news has been informed ... and that carrying the embryo to term might not be safe.
Cain's statement shows a sorry lack of empathy for the victim of rape. The poor woman has to live with the knowledge that she was victimized not once, but twice. Once by the man who did the physical rape and then by the state that says she cannot chose whether or not she can terminate the physical results of the crime.
And what if the rape victim is a child? Depending on the age of the child, will she even understand the consequences of the rules of the state that dictates her having the baby? The hormonal changes she will undergo because of the pregnancy? That no matter how she feels, she can be charged and convicted of a terrible crime that she did not knowingly participate in? The child will have enough problems dealing with the rape, whether the rapist is known or unknown to her. And on top of all that, to be forced to bear a child, too.
Empathy is sorely lacking in Mr. Cain if he is this firm on his stance on abortion. Shame on him!
Well that 12 year old pubescent little girl shouldn't have dressed so enticingly. I mean we all know men can't keep it in their pants. Le sighs.
I wonder if people even realize that rapists are given legal rights over the children they sire and that the mother (or father, depending on the applicable case) must fight them in court in order to remove all of those legal rights. Do people even remember back in the days when it was legal for husbands to rape their wives? For slave owners to rape their slaves? And they all were given 100% full parental rights over the child. What happens in a society where we force a woman to bear the child of her rapist? Does the rapist automatically lose all parental rights (there is not clarity on this matter nationally)? How does one conclude as much? Just because a woman says she was raped does not mean the person she accuses will be convicted and even so maybe he is only convicted for 5-10 years. How does the state handle it from there on out? GLBTQ people are particularly disturbed by this reality considering that many rights granted to rapists (in situations like husband/boyfriend on wife/girlfriend rape) are denied to GLBTQ couples. It's something I think a lot of straight people are unaware of. Or maybe those who are radically anti-choice are aware and simply don't care.
Persons with hoods deciding personhood.
I am beyond excited that this was posted here. Our aim was to get the video to go viral because we just don't have the same money that the proponents have. Commercials on TV are unbelievably expensive and we're just excited to have enough donations to make bumper stickers and push cards. Having this posted here means the world to me and everyone else who was involved with this video. Thank you so much.
If this does pass here, Imma get "pregnant" every April and claim that as a deduction. I mean, as long as I file between ovulation and my period I COULD BE. WHO KNOWS? And I damn for sure would like that $2500.
No no that'll never do. Then the government will have to pass laws mandating that our tampons and pads be inspected and tested for fertilized egg residue.
Mouzer! Ooooooo! Yuck! That would be the worst government job of all time!
That won't be necessary. They can simply monitor our hormones 24/7. And since we're clearly incapable of making decisions or taking responsibility, they can save all those little persons by taking them away from us whores and giving them to good, conservative, male dominated couples.
I would so read that book if someone wrote it. Oh, wait. http://www.amazon.com/Handmaids-Tale-first-Text-Only/dp/B004V6XC1I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1318975326&sr=8-2
Oh, Mouzer, I couldn't make myself type it, but I sure thought it! XP
Stopping a woman from dying due to ectopic pregnancy would be murder under this law.