I know we try not to get too political on this board, but I'd love to talk to other people about this. Mississippi is trying to pass a "Personhood Amendment" also known as Amendment 26. Here is the wording of it:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.
Regardless of the fact that I completely disagree with it, it's one of the most poorly written pieces of legislation I've ever seen. There are enough lawyers that could have written it clearly and they chose not to. It is technically possible that a man could, in a later divorce proceeding, accuse his wife with murder for a previous miscarriage or even for a biological defect known as a "hostile uterus."
Then there are people saying, "Well, the legislators and lawyers will sort it out." Roe v. Wade took four years from when "Roe" found she was pregnant for the case to work through the courts and be decided--and that was in the 70s. I wouldn't trust the MS state legislature to tell me what medical care to give my pets, they are purposely painting this with as broad a brush as possible and it makes me ill. It could outlaw forms of BC that prevent implantation or make doctors unwilling to perform medical procedures that save the life of the mother but endanger or kill the fetus for fear that they would be prosecuted.
And that it won't cost the taxpayers money-don't make me laugh. It will assuredly go to court, so the case would be paid for by the state. Which is funded by taxpayers. And again, I'm ill. And I'm sure it would be challenged for years. It's just such a slippery slope. A lot of people say that they don't support abortion on demand, but when you start denying someone rights, you can just keep whittling away. It's the people that say they support it only in certain circumstances, but then keep taking away more and more rights.
My termination could definitely be considered, and was, an on demand abortion. I was on BC, it failed, and I made a sound medical and life decision between my doctor and myself. I wasn't raped, it wasn't incest, and my life, I'm pretty sure, would not have been in danger by continuing the pregnancy. But it was my choice, and it greatly enhanced my quality of life. I think when you start taking things away because you don't approve of someone's choice personally, as long as it doesn't hurt others, you start down the road to something like Prohibition (watch the mini-series, it's awesome). Which is not a good idea.
Thanks for letting me rant, it's just everywhere right now, even though I'm out of the state I know a lot of people there, and this just saddens me. (and credit to my friend Jenna for elucidating parts of that arguement better than I could have)
