Jackson Jambalaya

Having been through in vitro and having a very vivid understanding of the process of in vitro, this amendment would have debilitating effects on the practice of in vitro. There is absolutely no way to only fertilize the amount of eggs you want to use. I only wanted one baby and to have that happen I had to fertilize 14 eggs. I think this amendment is so far over reaching that it will be tied up in lititgation for years and years and will costs the Mississippi tax payers more money than I care to think about.

My family will vote NO. Certain members of the legislature and certain others of the medical community who support it are singing the Pelosi song: "Let's pass this thing and THEN sort it out".

It would make too many procedures illegal. Wolf in sheep's clothing. Trojan Horse. Seizing on emotions to pass something we would forever regret.

Why in the world would anyone choose to let the gov't tell you what to do with your own body!!! Home of the free folks, stop giving your freedoms away one by one!!!

The amendment changes the definition of "person" for purposes of Art. 3 of the state constitution (our bill of rights). I think changing the definition of "person" will have little impact on the abortion issue, since the federal constitution trumps the state constitution. Doctors may initially be reluctant to perform in vitro or similar procedures, but it will quickly become apparent that federal law still trumps state law.

It will be interesting to see how it is applied to other matters where state law is not superseded by federal law.

The biggest effect would be in our state due process clause in Section 14 of the state constitution. It's impossible to predict the extent of the effect just from reading the text of the constitution. It would require examining prior cases decided on the basis of Section 14 of the state constitution.

Several places in the state bill of rights use the term "persons" to mean an individual's body or private space, not to mean a person as a individual. For example from Section 23 of the state constitution: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, and possessions, from unreasonable seizure or search." I can't think of any situation where it would ever be an issue, but the word "people" might be affected by the redefinition of "person" in the amendment, but I do not believe the word "persons" would be affected in Section 23. There is a similar issue in Section 12 regarding the right to bear arms.

A more interesting effect would be in Section 29: "Excessive bail shall not be required, and all persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses (a) when the proof is evident or presumption great; or (b) when the person has previously been convicted of a capital offense or any other offense punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of twenty (20) years or more." As amended, it would literally mean that, unless the proof is evident or the presumption is great, the child of a pregnant woman who has before been convicted of a capital offense must be granted bail, even though the woman herself would not be eligible.

Also, note that the redefinition of "person" does not appear to make an unborn child a citizen of the state. Section 28 provides, "All persons, resident in this State, citizens of the United States, are hereby declared citizens of the State of Mississippi." An unborn child, although a person after the amendment, would not be a citizen of the Untied States and, thus, not a citizen of Mississippi.

Most of the places where the word "person" is used in the bill of rights could never apply to a fetus, such as holding office, committing treason, being tried in double jeopardy, etc.

I suspect the effect will be minimal if the amendment is adopted. Just my half educated guess.

This personhood farce reminded me of a quote from Mr. Conservative himself:

"I dont have any respect for the religious right. There's no place in this country for practicing religion in politics....Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem."

I'm thinking this idiotic amendment might be one of those "terrible damn problems" Mr. Goldwater predicted.

"There is a similar issue in Section 12 regarding the right to bear arms."

An armed zygote?!? Wow - Mississippi leads the nation again! ;-)

So, will it be illegal for a doctor to terminate an ectopic pregnancy? None of the nitwits blindly supporting this seem willing to answer that question.

For those non-medicos out there, an ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized zygote gets stuck in a fallopian tube and starts growing there instead of the uterus. It is always fatal unless removed. It is hard to see how you can remove a "person" and send it to the Pathology lab without triggering at least manslaughter charges, if not homicide.

Voting No on this measure but I'm 100% in favor of Mississippians using the initiative process to bring issues directly to the voters.

Pay close attention to those in our state who do not want the people to have the right to avail themselves of this process.

I'm voting no because I don't want any amendment or potential legislation to limit birth control options. An IUD is a perfectly legal method of birth control, but if this passes, it will probably be outlawed in MS (at least until the higher courts overturn it). Why would anyone want to limit any means of birth control in this state where we already deal with so much generational poverty? In fact, the people who don't want to pay for welfare and food stamps for children should be trying to get every poor woman in MS an IUD because they prevent pregnancy for up to 10 years!

I'm not voting for abortion, I'm voting that this amendment is just too broad.

I'll be voting no on this.
9:33 The government already tells you what you can and can't do with your body.

Mark me down as a "Yes". Human life has been cheapened. There are matters in life more important than your covenience.

An easy no. I do need to look up the eminent-domain initiative, however, because I might vote "yes" on that.

"There are matters in life more important than your covenience. "

Like dying from an untreated ectopic pregnancy?

It's OK to make that choice for yourself (buh-bye) but immoral to deny others lifesaving treatment.

The idiots behind this proposal obviously can't think ahead and see the obvious problems.

The leadership of the movement for 26 can't even agree what it means. In the article last Sunday (I think) in the C-L about the initiative, one of organizers said that there was no intention to end birth control for people and that the Legislature would take care of it. But then another organizer said that, yes, they would like to end birth control in Mississippi.

I am against abortion, but I am also against knee-jerk policy.

But it'll pass -- because all those people that Anon. 9:48 is so fond of VERY RARELY stop to study issues before voting on them. And they'll want to tell all their church friends how they took a stand.

"Power to the people" sounds good until you realize that those are the same people who elected the morons in our Legislature to begin with. Now they get to mess with our state constitution, too?

I am pro-life and voting NO on this outrageous expansion of government authority.

10:30
You are correct, life has been cheapened, and the vast majority of abortions are for the convenience of the woman having them. That's just an inconvenient truth. Having said that, this is a poorly worded initiative, and for that reason I'll have to vote no.
11:00
Are you the one that brought up the ectopic pregnancy, or are you just another drone that never had an original thought in your life, and are repeating what someone with better manners stated? It would appear that the answer is obvious, obviously.

Anderson wrote: I do need to look up the eminent-domain initiative, however, because I might vote "yes" on that.

I began the journey on the Eminent Domain Initiative as a Yes vote but now weeks later after having heard Leland Speed make his case three different times against the initiative I've changed my mind. In my mind the greatest risk for eminent domain abuse is at the local level in our county and municipal governments. While I believe this initiative would rightly place some needed retraints on those entities I've been persuaded that if passed this initiative is going to make it extremely difficult for MDA to bring new industry and jobs to Mississippi. Not impossible but much harder and in these difficult economic times which my crystal ball sees lasting for years into the future I do not believe we can afford to impair Mississippi's job creation efforts.

There was a black, female, physician on Gallo about three weeks ago who said it would indeed criminalize the cessation of an ectopic pregnancy. She supported the Personhood Initiative as well as any and all forms of destruction of a fertilized egg.

How many of us want to close our eyes and imagine George Flaggs, Willie Simmons, Joey Fillingane and that little bowling-ball shaped funeral home owner deciding reproductive rights in Mississippi?

I'm against abortion and this amendment. Too much, too broad.

Donna Ladd is against this, calling those who support it "borderline insane" among other requisite insults. That's almost enough to vote for it.

That was a joke, hipsters. Calm down and go back to playing revolution at your "Occupy Fondren" rally.

What I find funny is how so many rabid anti-lifers are now appealing to the reason of those they detest, e.g. "You can be pro-life and still oppose this amendment!" In other words, "You people that we have been insulting with names like 'idiot' (Hello, 11:00!) and worse for years, we're sorry! Just vote against this and we'll be nice until Wednesday, when we'll re-employ our foul-mouthed, juvenile tactics (like showing up at a Smith Park pro-life rally with an accordion and screaming obscene slogans in front of children)."

Shadowfax made a point that underscores my biggest problem with this amendment. The notion that we can trust the courts and the Legislature to "get it right" is ludicrous. For a rather poignant example, see the healthcare law and Pelosi's infamous "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

I am pro-life and I support personhood, however I do not trust a bunch of cronies and activist jurists to do the right thing. All it takes is one vindictive person to open up lawsuit Hades.

Initiative 31, however, has my vote and those of the ten dead people I vote for. Leland Speed can go suck a lemon in his convention center.

To echo Reed, NO on Initiative 26 and YES on Initiative 31. And an emphatic YES on the Voter ID initiative.

The working of initiative 26 is simply too loose and, if left up to our legislature that can't even agree on district lines, there is simply not enough trust in them to legislate such important issues as this.

Does anyone know if these initiatives pass based on a simple majority or some higher percentage?

I don't think quoting Barry Goldwater helps anyone's case. Goldwater was a screwball who got hammered in the national vote. They older he got, the screwier he got.

I believe initiatives require a majority of the TOTAL ELECTION TURNOUT, not just the people who cas a vote.

Say 600,000 people turn out to vote. 200,000 people vote against an amendment and 250,000 vote for it. It still wouldn't pass. The majority of TURNOUT would mean it had to get get 300,001 or higher.

Screwball? You think he got it wrong on the religious right?

Seems to me he made pretty accurate predictions. Here we are today with the crazy Baptist tentacles influencing every piece of government it can. The Baptist fools and other evangelical fake "Christians" have one agenda: to pass laws based on their religious beliefs. Since when did that become OK in America?

Thats what this personhood crap is about. This garbage has failed twice in CO, the home state of the 30 year old God-pimping huckster pushing the amendment. It's no accident he brought this to the state with the highest concentration of simple-minded evangelical sheeple. This state is the only one dumb enough to enact a freedom restriction religious law into it's constitution. And all because the idiot in the pulpit told them "the Lord" wanted them to.

Voting NO. If all life begins at conception, then it cannot logically follow that abortion is okay in case of rape.

I am anti abortion, not pro life. It would never be the right choice for me. For somebody else, it might be. Don't want the Mississippi legislature and all their collective wisdom deciding anything for me, especially that.

1:20, you are close, but not quite exact. An amendment takes 50% plus one of the people who vote on the amendment. A simple majority. But also, 40% of the total vote cast in the election must vote on the amendment. Example: One million total votes on November 8th - Governor's election. 700,000 people vote on an amendment. Amendment passes with 375,000 for it and 325,000 against. Amendment got 50%, but did not get 40% of one million. Ergo, amendment fails.

While on this board, put me down as anti-abortion but anti this amendment. This amendment would effectively end invitro fertilization availability - a travesty that shouldn't happen to loving parents that want a child but are unable to conceive 'normally'. And to those that say the legislature can 'tweak those details' - you are wrong. This is a constitutional amendment and it cannot be 'tweaked' by legislative action.

Crowley, you are pathetic.
I guess you would shoot a Baptist if you "had to", kind of like a spoon- wielding burglar. Feeling like a real man, are we?

1:42 -- my bad. I'm not in the Election Code these days as much as I used to be.

Besides the point that this amendment leaves women's rights 100 years in the past, that this country was founded based on freedom from religious prosecution (which this amendment is), and the fact that the majority of the people supporting this amendment are the same people bashing the current administration for their "pass it and then we'll find out what's in it" tactics regarding health care reform.

The issue really isn't whether the fetus is alive - no one is disputing that, nor do they dispute that it's human (another red herring argument). The issue is whether the fetus in an independent human being - a distict life, not just alive - with human rights.

Warts are alive, so is cancer. But they're not a distinct life from the host. Just like in this case, the fetus is not a distict life from the mother until the point of sustainability. It is nonsensical to discuss "killing a wart", and misleading to suggest that wart-killing may be justified in only some situations.

The real question becomes whether fetuses are more like warts or cancers, or whether they're more like children. It's not whether they're alive, it's whether they are devolped to the point of self sustainability outside of the mother's womb.

I know comparing a human fetus to a wart is a strong analogy that is going to cause this post to be the subject of much criticism, but the point remains the same.

Anyone who votes yes for this initiative is supporting the idea that a single celled organism has more rights than their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters.

No, my child. Put the King James down for a sec and put your thinking cap on.

I understand that Baptists have the right to believe what they want to believe and live their lives as they wish, just like non-Baptists. If only Baptists would extend that same understanding to everyone else.

What is pathetic is that you Talibaptists are so insecure that you constantly feel the need to regulate the private lives and reproductive systems of others, all in a comical attempt to garner bonus points with Yahweh.

Why is it so hard for you people to understand that you do not have the right to impose your religious theological laws
on everyone else?

Perhaps the term "Talibaptists" was coined for a reason.

I'm unsure how I will vote on 26. I need to read up on it some more before I make that determination.

I am against abortion. It's murder, no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others that it's not.

I tend to feel anti in vitro, or at least the way that in vitro is done today. I believe that there should be stricter standards on how it's done so that there are no unused fertilized embryos left over. I know that if I ever did in vitro, I would be haunted by the thought that mine and my husband's unborn children were discarded or left frozen somewhere. On the other hand, I realize that there are precious children who exist because of vitro. That makes it a tough issue for me.

Wow, a startling amount of common sense in these comments today. Well done, all.

Mark me down as a "NO" too. While not a fan at all of abortion, legally I don't think it's good policy, it's a dangerous law medically, and religiously I think it fails (I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that a soul cannot inhabit a body without organs -- probably why miscarriages usually happen within the first trimester).

I expected to hear someone refer to the "Prohibition" series on PBS. It was a strong reminder that you cannot legislate morality. We have enough hypocrisy in the criminal code as it is, meaning laws that exist to placate those who espouse the "official morality" but who don't really care if the law is obeyed as long as their special morality is sanctioned. Having said all that, I have to admit that "illegal" whiskey from Rankin County did somehow taste better than what I buy today.

I'm a Jackson-area mother who started a grassroots group, Parents Against MS 26, because I can't support the unintended consequences of this terrible amendment.

Thanks to infertility treatment, I am a mother of three. I also suffer from a medical condition (endometriosis), which is commonly treated with the birth control pill or the Mirena IUD. I have friends who are alive and fertile today because they were able to use methotrexate to end their ectopic pregnancies, instead of being forced to wait for rupture and undergo tubal removal. All of these things are under threat from 26.

If you want to end elective abortion, go find a way to do it which doesn't trample on my right to make my own health care decisions which have nothing to do with abortion.

Can't imagine that someone (at this point in the discussion) has no opinion and will have to study the issue more.

I also disagree with the gentle poster who opined that the legislature can have no future role in massaging the law, which the initiative becomes, if passed. But, if that's so, the only thing I find more frightening than the legislature determining the impact of such legislation is the courts doing it.

My apologies to bowling balls everywhere. Steve Holland was the name that escaped me earlier. I can't imagine that goofball deciding on finger sandwiches in the funeralizin' anti-room, much less the issues of LIFE or ABORTION.

Crowley,
I've had my thinking cap on all day. Unlike you, who felt the need to spew large quantities of venom toward a group of people that you clearly don't want to accord the same right to think as they please that you wish to have accorded you. Maybe it was the double scotches with lunch, or you just didn't have enough ambulances to chase today, we'll never know. I guess the oh-so-clever term Talibaptist was coined so small minded persons like you could feel smug, and really, really clever.

Curt,
Is that short for Curtis? I guess you are a Evangelical "Legit" Christian? What are the tenants of your faith, if you are a practicing Christian, being the all-knowing mouthpiece for all that is anti-Baptist? My faith teaches me to go out and tell others about Christ. That is in the King James version you referred to earlier. I guess you decided to label all of those Baptists "fools", but once again I would direct you to that publication you referenced earlier and check out what it says about judging others. Wait I am sure you already KNEW that. Forgive me.

Thanks, 11:59. I guess I will google up whatever Speed said.

The "help business" argument does not hold much water with me. Nissan, quite obviously, did not want to have to pay market price for the land -- that price being affected by the fact Nissan wanted the land. I don't think it's the state's job to help Nissan buy land for less than it's worth.

If the only way we can attract business to Mississippi is to give money away, then there is something wrong with our business-generation model.

If personhood passes hypothetical:

I am asked to handle an estate of a man that dies intestate. He leaves a wife and two children. Do I need to ask the wife to take a pregnancy test? If she is pregnant, do I open a file in chancery for the unborn? When she delivers, do I have to obtain paternity results?

If a private corporation wants land that someone else owns, they can pay the price that that landowner feels is fair for THEIR land, or they can go somewhere else. The state has no business taking from one citizen to give to another citizen. Period.

Obviously many of you have never been involved in Industrial development at the CONtest level. It's not as simple as telling the prospect to make his best offer. When a community wants to attract 100-3500 jobs, you almost give away the farm and riding cultivator. The rest of you can moan about lack of opportunities.

WWJD is one of the mantras of a good number of the religious right behind this initiative. That being said, Jesus was a practicing Jew. Jewish perspective on personhood is that a child is not a person until birth. Some of them may need to explore WWJD about personhood. But then, that's not going to happen cuz in the South, we NEVER let science, common sense or even common decency get in the middle of a good redneck perspective on what we beleive.

It's silly. Legal spaghetti aside; It shows the lengths that extreme thinking can go to in order to pursue ideological thinking inside of a political discussion.

Can anyone provide any instance where a law has NOT been passed during a legislative session. In this instance only, you can say, THEY were for less government.

On the thread of less regulation, this law is absurd. The regulation, legal wrangling (both criminal and civil) is enough to start an entire division of government at the State level. Yeah, sounds like this is squarely aimed at less government.

Health issue is a no brainer. How about we legislate cancer as a crime. Yes, it is a living thing and if it shows "personhood" qualities, killing it may be illegal. Imagine the simple leap in the situation with an endoscopic cancer that is confused with a fetus. I guess we prosecute the doctor, the mother, the accomplices et al.

I'm still thinking no.

2:57
I have been through IVF 3 times. The 1st time I produced 15 eggs, 12 fertilized and 2 were available to transfer; the 2nd time I produced 14 eggs, 11 fertilized and 2 were availabe to transfer and 2 were frozen; then we planned to put those 2 in, but they didn't survive the thaw; the 3rd time I produced 11 eggs, 9 fertilized, and 2 were available to transfer. Believe me this is most often the case with how IVF goes. Embryos usually don't sit indefinitely as the couple has to pay a good deal of money each year to store them. If there were "stricter standards" (ie only collecting/fertilizing as many eggs as you are willing to put in) it would take people going through it forever to have kids. 1 cycle of IVF costs around $12000 and is rarely covered by insurance. We have decided to do embryo adoption in which we will use the embryos that another couple no longer desires to try to build our family. That might become illegal in MS if 26 passes, too, as you can't just give away a person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Cfi8cf9co&feature=share

That is what gripes my a&& about the Republican party. They preach all day they are for less government, yet each time they get the chance they give Big Brother more steroids. At least the Democrats don't lie and say they are for less government.

an emphatic NO. this law is so wrong there is not enough space to explain it all. the sad thing is that most of the anti abortion people will only listen to the last five minutes of talk radio to get their information which forms their opinion. this bill affects invitro, this bill affects birth control, this bill affects terminating pregnancies that are not viable, and this bill affects a woman's right to choose. AND. believe me, if you outlaw abortions, it won't stop abortions, it will stop safe abortions. who wants their wife, sister, daughter or friend ending a pregnancy on a kitchen table with a coat hanger

I am a republican and pro-life and will vote NO for many reasons.

1) Only the "twisted sisters" OBGYN group in jackson is supporting it.
2) The highly sought after in vitro specialist like Drs. Hines and Isaacs will have to pack up and leave the state. It's already hard enough to attract specialists in our state.
3) Ectopic pregnancies will be considered murder.
4) Birth control pills and IUDs will be illegal in our state. The way "the pill" works is by inhibiting ovulation. In the unlikely event of escaped ovulation, the pill creates a hostile environment in the endometrium for implantation.

The fertilized egg cannot have life. God said so.

Leviticus 17:
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood..."
"...the life of all flesh is the blood thereof"

Blood is not infused into the fetus until 12 to 15 days after conception. If this idiotic "amendment" passes, it spits in God's face.

I am relieved to see the blogging comments.

I can only assume the amendment was proposed by people who don't know anything about the female reproductive system. They do not understand how birth control works, what gynecological issues are involved in becoming pregnant and carrying to term.

And, they surely haven't given a thought to the havoc this would cause our legal system.

This proposed amendment is yet another embarrassment to Mississippi.

I'm surprised , no horrified , that there were only two doctors attempting to " educate" our legislature. Every doctor in the State should be speaking out against this! Have our physicians no ethical courage? Why are they so silent? Are they afraid they'll lose some patients and money matters mnre than good medicine?

9:05; I enjoyed your very informative post on IVF and wish you and your family the best. Very interesting comments. On the note of not being able to just 'give a person away', I feel quite sure Flaggs will introduce an ammendment making it legal to leave eggs at a local fire station or police department drop-box. So, that point is covered.

As to the back and forth suggesting Jesus would be on one side or the other and God is on stand-by deciding whether to send lightning bolts to Mississippi, those arguments are wasted finger exercises for those typing them as nothing will change the opinion of 'you people'.

October 17 @ 3:44 (times two no less)...

Your beliefs and the need to profess them to others may be in keeping with your faith, but that is not the case with all. And to attack Mr. Crowley for his beliefs is ignorant. And the characterizations of his lifestyle are personal and vicious and should not be tolerated. I guess since you're spending so much time on this forum, aren't you missing opportunities to spew hatred at some abortion clinic? Firebombed any mosques lately, have we?

That said, it's the spittle-flying sheep like you who wish for an injection of Christian morality into our legal code - provisions that the Founding Fathers fought against by advocating for a separation of church and state. The vote for NO on the initiative is not a mandate that all women are entitled to abortions or birth control or whatever...the vote for NO is for all women to have that choice.

The Ms. State Medical Assoc. voted NOT to support #26 because it would endanger the health of women and put doctors in jeopardy of criminal behavior for performing common medical procedures.

This Initiative #26 should carry a Surgeon general's warning.

WARNING: Intitiaitve #26 is harfmful to women's health, families rights and taxpayers dollars.

To quote Nancy Reagen, "Just say NO" to #26.

MS State Medical Assoc should have acted more aggressively before this ever got off the ground!

It'd be nice if they'd spring for an ad as well!

Will vote YES on #26. The majority of comments I have read here are so uninformed it's ridiculous. Go to yeson26.net to find the answers to your questions. And no, the pill will not be outlawed.

I will be voting YES on #26.

Everyone that is paranoid about women's health, etc is just being fed lies and propaganda by pro choicers and planned parenthood.

This is about calling a person a person, and to quit the lie we tell ourselves that a baby being aborted really isn't either a baby or a person.

Yes on #26

For those who lose sleep every night over all those fertilized eggs that don't implant because of an IUD, get a grip.

For some of the commentors, let me correct an often-stated misconception. This is not a "Republican" led issue. While there are many good, well-meaning Republicans that support this initiative, there are also many good, well-meaning Republicans that do not.

I, for one, am part of that second group. And I know many others that join with me. I also know many members of the Tea Party (yes, that is a different group - get over it) that also do not support this proposed amendment.

Further, the "true" national "Right to Life" groups do not support this proposed amendment. (I qualify the RTL groups as "true" being those that work for the cause, not those that SELL their endorsements to candidates.) They think it goes too far and hurts their efforts.

I can relate to the poster at 9:05 and their efforts at invitro. You cannot go through the pain, the efforts and the costs associated with trying to have a baby via invitro and fertilize only the two eggs that you plan to implant. After spending $15k or so for doctors (along with additional thousands associated with the process) you have to plan on a second strategy - what to do in case neither of the implanted eggs succeed. That's why you would attempt to have additional fertilized eggs available.

Prop 26 states "life begins at fertilization". I just don't believe that. Fertilization out of the womb is not life - not in my world. But if Prop 26 were to pass, it would have made impossible (illegal) the process that has resulted in our baby that is now due next Spring.

Count me as a Conservative Republican that will vote and work against the passage of Prop 26.

To the anonymous people of 1:35 and 1:51...we can respect your opinions but to call us uninformed or somehow delusional is irresponsible and similar to the tactics of those who are unable to objectively express their opinions.

The proposed initiative, as it is worded, would not call into question the legality of birth control, abortion and IVF. You are correct so far.

However, our paranoia is that because it is so loosely worded, it would not take very much for a legislative body with a religious bent to start winnowing away those freedoms which we currently enjoy. This is the proverbial foot in the door to an erosion of personal liberties and a gross expansion of government into medical practice.

Personally, it is too much of a stretch to call life beginning at fertilization. Until a "being" is capable of existing outside of its host, then it would seem (to me, granted) unreasonable to call that alive.

To those who keep saying to go to yeson26.com - The only answers I see are essentially "Because we said so!". There is no actual substance to their positions on how this inititive would play out should it pass.

1:35 and 1:51; both of you remind this participant of Nancy Pelosi and her 'don't worry about it, I know what's best for you, just support it' position on all of Obama's attempts at legislation prior to her defeat. Hers, however, were devious and contemptible positions. I don't believe yours are. Both of you are only repeating what you were told Sunday in church to repeat. It's tough to fault sheeple for being sheeple. So in the meantime, I will simply tolerate you. But, it's always important that we recognize you.

Why would any member of the TEA Party vote for this tax wasting amendment. It won't stop a single abortion and us taxpayers will spend millions fighting it in court before it is laughed out of existence.

This is a horrible proposal and I beg to differ with those not calling this a "Republican" proposal. The biggest faces pushing it are Phil Bryant and Andy Taggart and they are Republicans. They are an embarrassment.

I spoke with Phil's team and the response I got was mind-bending: "Oh, I don't believe it will ban IUDs. That is just a scare tactic." Like hell it is.

IUDs work by creating a hostile environment for a fertilized egg (err, "person"). That is, IUDs work by creating a mini-abortion. So, yes, they will be banned.

The corrosive effect of the stupid pandering by Phil and his team is going to lead a number of folks (myself included) away from the Republican Party. I think the lack understanding of nuance and particulars is a nasty Bryant trait and we are in for some bad times with the new not-so-bright governor to be.

Didn't Johnny DuPree endorse it too? Has he become a Republican?

I agree about Bryant's room temperature IQ - we're in for a rocky 4 years.

But, But, 6:57 and 7:24, Phil once had a private sector job and a Four OH WUN KAY!

It ain't my fault you two are pissed off because your party couldn't field a viable candidate/opponent. You need to work that stuff out without whining about Bryant's support of the initiative. Isn't he entitled to a position?

Shaun @9:09pm: "In closing for the evening, I think Curt Crowley may be the anti-Christ.....just saying."

That's rubbish, Shaun. I think Christianity is a fine religion. I just wish more Christians practiced it.

I don't think Mr. Crowley is the anti-Christ. I think organized religion is the anti-Christ.

IUDs outlawed? Ha, that could never happen.

Death Panels created? Ha, what a wild imagination.

A nationwide database of personal medical information? What are you, crazy?

For those of you losing sleep over frozen embryos and what to do with excess eggs, get a grip. Do you think the government would really descend on you later and penalize you for your decisions? Really now! The government is much too busy to concern itself with minutia.

Bravo, Curt and Shadow...

3:58 IUDs do not prevent conception. They prevent the egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus. 26 would make a human fertilized egg into a " person".

And, I do think that some of the zealots behind this would use the legal system to enforce the legal language of 26 and that those who are ignoring that fact have their heads in the sand and haven't looked at the legal history of lawsuits filed by some members of the " pro-life" movement.

So, yes, IUDs would be banned in MS and women who needed them and could afford to do so would go to OB-GYNs out of state.

Frozen eggs would be " persons" and women who want IVF would go out of state as well.

Pregnant women who could die in child birth or who have gotten pregnant from incest,pedophilia and rape would be pregnant with a " person" with legal rights and their rapists or some zealot could sue on behalf of " the person" to ensure the " right to life" of " the person" and force the woman to carry to term.

You obviously weren't around when abortion was illegal or legal only to save the life of the mother. In the state I lived, there was a medical review board that had to approve abortions. There was a great deal of paper work and process involved to just get their attention. In a pregnancy weeks matter. In the case of the 10 and 12 year old sisters whose mother " sold" them to men for money and who both had STDs that affect the fetus, the board was too late on the 10 year old and wouldn't consider the 12 year old's doctor's " emergency" application at all. I expect taxpayers are still paying for the consequences. And, then there's the girl in my high school class that got an illegal abortion, developed an infection, nearly died and was left infertile. Women who are determined not to be pregnant don't let the law deter them. That was REALITY before Roe v Wade. Bad things happen when people insist the government force their moral and religious beliefs on others. There's a difference between " sharing the good news" and ramming it down someone else's throat.

There is a lot of confusion in this world! As I get older my thinking has become more and more shades of grey. The Religious Right want to be so selective in what government can and can’t do in peoples lives. How many times have I heard them say, it’s all about ‘your personal relationship with Jesus.’ Decisions about ones body should be a private matter that should involve the individual and their minister, family, doctor, God whomever they choose to enlist for help.

Because of my interest in justice when it applies to childhood sexual abuse, I have noticed and want to point out one strange phenomenon with this group. They are very quick to associate male pedophilia as something related to homosexuality for the adult pedophile and their male child victims. They will argue the point of when a child should start thinking as an adult not based on facts but mere speculation and personal opinion. Oh, and this is all contingent upon who’s involved in these crimes. If the pedophile is identified as one of their own, they take the stand that I just eluded to previously. If the criminal is ‘the preverbal troll under the bridge,’ then off with his head! This is just down right mind boggling to me. For those that will be critical of my writing ability and not my point, please excuse me.

Remember, the young men in the "Canton Estates Rap Video" are persons.

6:57 - I didn't say that NO Republican supported this proposition - I just said it wasn't a "Republican" proposition. Sure, there are many republicans supporting the proposition, but there are also Democrats and Independents behind it as well. And there are Republicans, Independents and Democrats against it.

This proposition was brought into the state from outside and driven as a proposed I&R Constitutional Amendment by folks that have an agenda to push. I&R was intended to be for things that 'at least part' of the population wanted but couldn't get through the legislature.

If the true desire was to define personhood this could have been done in the normal legislative process - where it would have been debated and all these 'questions' would have been worked out. Such a bill would have passed and been signed, and it wouldn't carry all of these issues and questions about its affect on IUDs, invitro, etc.

But because of the definitions, questions, and 'pass it so you will know what's in it' problems, I'm a Republican that will be voting against Prop 26 - along with many of my Republican, Democrat, and Independent friends.

Wife got a call last night from a number that said Waynesboro, MS. The caller was encouraging her to vote no, because if a woman was raped, she would be haunted every day for the rest of her life by a child conceived as a result of the crime. Not sure who wrote the script for that one, but it needs some work.

This was just emailed to me. I watched it with skepticism, until I got to the 2:30 mark. That woman has a point. Can you imagine being in her shoes, in her situation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Cfi8cf9co&feature=youtu.be

WHO, in their right mind would let the government tell them what they can do with their own body, regardless of your personal choices!!! This is not a Socialist Country folks!!!!!

I vote NO! This is a purely religious issue that has no place in politics. The extreme right has become outrageous in their drive to control women. Already over 900 anti-women bills have been proposed across this nation by the GOP who claims they want the govt. out of our lives. This personhood idea is ludicrous and will become obsolete if it ever passes because Federal law will trump this any day. Mississippi better be prepared to spend millions on all the litigation this extremist action will create.