Letter to the editor

      During the last election, Mississippi voters defeated a ballot initiative known as the "Personhood Amendment" or Initiative 26.  This initiative attempted to make an amendment to Mississippi's state constitution that said life begins at fertilization of the egg.  58 percent of Mississippians voted against the bill in a state with a long history of pro-life sentiment and legislation. 

       The initiative, which supporters thought would challenge nationwide abortion laws and rights, attempted to establish very general legislation in an effort to make it nearly impossible for a woman to have an abortion.  It not only would have accomplished this but it could have suppressed women's ability to gain certain types of birth control, fertility treatment and fertilization counseling.  While it was defeated in Mississippi many are fearful that a more succinct and less sweeping form of the initiative may emerge, making it more palatable for voters in other states.

       Thankfully, Mississippi voters, like Colorado voters twice before, came to their senses and realized the potential implications of passing the initiative.  Certain types of birth control, because they can kill fertilized eggs, might become illegal to obtain.  Providing emergency birth control such as the "morning-after pill" to rape victims would almost certainly become illegal.  In Vitro fertilization techniques could become illegal because of the disposal and use of fertilized eggs.  Women carrying fertilized eggs might effectively lose their legal rights because they "house" another person. Such an amendment would be unconstitutional because it is in direct conflict with Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States.

       It was the very general and selfishly delusional terminology of the initiative that effectively turned off voters and their support.  The Personhood pro-life supporters heralded the amendment when first introduced as a no-brainer right wing vote.  When the implications of its passing became apparent, it began to lose support from normally conservative followers.

       The initiative attempted to change too much at once.  This made many supporters uncomfortable.  Even Republican politicians such as Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour admitted struggling with "Personhood" before eventually voting for it because he is pro-life.  Barbour wanted the wording of the bill to be ironed out in the state legislature before being given to voters.

       It is this editing and "ironing out" of the initiative which is most dangerous to many pro-choice supporters.  Personhood USA has already failed to pass such legislature twice in Colorado and now once in the much more conservative Mississippi. We can now look for more succinct forms of the initiative to reach the voters in other states.

      Attempts are currently being made to have the initiative put on ballots in Montana, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and California.  Personhood USA officials have already said that they may attempt a re-wording of the initiative and reintroduce it in the states where it has already failed. 

      This relentlessness to have their initiative passed should frighten pro-choice advocates.  It is easy to identify such bills when they are labeled "Personhood Initiative" or have extreme language.  It may be more difficult to identify and rally against such bills if their wording is changed and their support is unified.  Voters in the states where such initiatives are already suggested should be wary of attempts by personhood advocates to increase their following.   They may do this by supporting legislation that supports abortion access restriction or even by gaining the support of religious groups with anti-abortion stances. 

     The defeat in Mississippi is positive.  It makes us think that if such a conservative state can oppose such an initiative it can be done in any state.  This may be true in its current form, but without due vigilance we may find ourselves fighting to maintain ground against similar initiatives in the future.