Jackson Jambalaya

Nice letter. But what about Initiative 26 would change their story? Ectopic pregnancy? Nope, it was a cyst. Did they destroy embryos? Nope, they had miscarriages (like we did when trying to have kids) and ultimately utilized all the embryos they created.

I'd like to know what they would have done if they ended up with a successful pregnancy and had twins the first time. Would they have destroyed the frozen embryos? If you believe that life begins at fertilization, that's a problem. Period. If you believe that life begins some time later, no problem. Pick your day/week/month/trimester.

What I'm sick of hearing is "I believe that life begins at conception, but...." It does or it doesn't. Anything after the "but" is rationalization.

Ectopic pregnancies? Nothing gives the embryo a greater right to life than the mother. In a very real sense, terminating that pregnancy would actually be self-defense and likely viewed as justified, excused or mitigated under the law.

IVF? If you had Warren Buffet's checkbook, could you do two or three eggs at a time? One egg at a time? If so, then IVF as justification for being against Initiative 26 is an economic argument. What's your price for life?

Harsh? Probably. But it's time that people start actually thinking about what it means to say that they believe life begins at conception. I don't care whether you believe that it does or you believe that it doesn't. But don't claim you believe it or that you're 100% pro-life and then start explaining all the reasons that really isn't your belief. Modern medicine can do many wonderful things, but sunshine and rainbows are not the end result of every technique available with modern medicine.

Figure out when you believe life begins and vote that way, or quit claiming you believe life begins at conception.

"'Ectopic pregnancies? Nothing gives the embryo a greater right to life than the mother. In a very real sense, terminating that pregnancy would actually be self-defense and likely viewed as justified, excused or mitigated under the law."

This will probably go over your head, but it is impossible for the DOCTOR (3rd party) to claim his/her life was in danger from the ectopic pregnancy, and therefore invoke self-defense as a legitimate defense. The DOCTOR would be the one charged with homicide, which is the appropraite charge for someone who willingly and deliberately undertakes an action with the specific intent of ending the existence of another PERSON, which is what Prop. 26 proponents would like to see happen.

So, docs could preserve their own license and livelihoods by not treating women dying from an ectopic pregnancy - is that a good outcome for society? Before you assert this is all speculation that would never occur in the real world I direct you to the charge of homicide filed against a medical resident in Minneapolis around 1991 or so; the D.A. just happened to be running for mayor and this generated a LOT of publicity and momentum for the campaign. Of course the charge was thrown out (the doctor had prescibed morphine to ease the terminal pain of a patient). That D.A. is now reportedly a U.S. Senator. Don't think for a moment MS politicos are any different.

Anonymous, Yes On 26 has been very clear that it would prevent embryos from being frozen, and limit doctors to attempting to fertilize no more than two eggs. Most couples would never wind up with any embryos at all.

It's not just an economic issue -- it's a safety issue. Women who develop a condition called ovarian hyperstimulation often have ALL their embryos frozen and transferred on a subsequent cycle. If they were to do a fresh transfer and become pregnant, it would make the illness much worse, because the pregnancy hormones worsen the condition rapidly. OHSS can be life-threatening, especially when you are pregnant with multiples -- I myself spent almost a week in the hospital with OHSS in the early stages of my twin pregnancy.

Doctors can't practice IVF effectively OR safely under 26.

Just curious, can any of you No on 26 folks explain your understanding of the difference between an amendment and a statute or case law?

That last question is about as broad as 26.

The statute is the law violated by the rapist. The amendment is the law that would take any decision away from the victim and require her to go forward with her pregnancy created by the rape.

To me, it seems that there has not been proper debate and disclosure. There seems be legitimate concern that this proposal is so poorly crafted and conflicts with the US Constitution that the real result will be that it goes to the us supreme and in the process of slapping it down, the supreme court reinforces roe v wade.

I think most who will vote yes see this as a yes vote for God and feel they are affirming themselves to God. In reality, their actions will probably solidify the courts current
position more firmly than ever.

Also, the deal with ectopic pregnancies isn't just about whether they can be terminated, but how.

There's very good reason to think that 26 would prevent treatment with a medicine called methotrexate, which allows the woman to miscarry naturally without surgery or possible loss of fertility. The principle of "double effect", which Yes On 26 likes to tout, is thought by most pro-life sources to prevent any treatment other than tubal removal surgery.

We've posted about this issue multiple times on the Parents Against MS 26 blog.

As to the question of amendments vs statutes: I am not an attorney, and don't even pretend to be one on the Internet. However, when Yes On 26 seems so intent on telling me that 26 will prohibit some things I find very important, it seems prudent to me to believe them.

I'll be glad when this is all over.

Hey, we were talking eptopic prego's way back when before any of you crazy yahoo's decided to make it an issue.


26 is really a poorly written law. Anyone who supports it probably, if i had to guess, really hasn't read it or thought about the implications of it being enacted.

And if I'm incorrect about an amendment being a law, then guess what, prove me otherwise...which again demonstrates the poor whatever you want to call this attempt to pre-empt the number one social issue that dominates politics. I wish we would make this a medical matter so HIPPA could usurp some of the emotionalism that surrounds this.

Some of the supporters simply don't care, KaptKangaroo. We have Yes commenters every day who come to our blog and our Facebook page who say that they really and truly don't care if some women die, or if it outlaws birth control, or if couples can't build their families, as long as it ends elective abortion.

Our families and our lives should not be treated as collateral damage in the pro-choice vs pro-life battle.

Just the fact that EVERY OBGYN (with the exception of one group of nutty women) is against the initiative, is reason enough to vote NO

@9:30 said; "Ectopic pregnancies? Nothing gives the embryo a greater right to life than the mother. In a very real sense, terminating that pregnancy would actually be self-defense and likely viewed as justified, excused or mitigated under the law."

By qualifying that statement with "likely" you are underscoring the issue. No law should be so broad as to be left open to the interpretation of judges. Well-written laws clearly outline what will, must, don't or can't occur. This is not a well-written law.

Delta

Ah, but 12:08, those are "experts" whose opinions are thus elitist and should be ignored by red-blooded Americans.

@9:30,

Are you willing to bet your life on "likely"?

We have enough people on the planet, abort away. Or if you have a ton of money and wanna have a baby, or even a litter of babies, go ahead. I don't give a shit if you have IVF and have a litter and have to abort to stay alive. Everyone thinks that life is so sacred. Half of all persons conceived spontaneously abort. Since we are in the bible belt, chew on this: God is the ultimate abortionist since he lets half of every egg fertilized spontaneously abort.

The animus, hostility and hate generated by this campaign is so refreshing.

Hey, @9:45 PM, this will probably go over your head, but in Mississippi, a third-party has the right to defend another. There are also statutes exempting physicians from liability in place which do not conflict with a simple definition of a person being put into the Constitution. The author's story is very emotional (generally the territory of liberals trying to scare voters into doing something), but has nothing to do with the law. For that reason, stating his profession is a bit misleading.

OBGYNs are experts in constitutional law? That's been one of the real problems in this debate. We've relied on dueling physicians to try and answer legal questions.

Kangaroo, can you explain what HIPPA would do? I don't get that comment. All the amendment does is define a person to include the unborn. It doesn't dictate changes to the criminal code. Those who have been birthed have been persons under the law for quite some time, but there are recognized statutory distinctions as to how they must be treated (ie when it is excusable to kill).

Not sure how, where, when or why HIPAA comes into play in this discussion. Please explain.

7:29

All laws that contain the word "person" (Which appears nearly 10,000 times in the MS Code) will be affected by this initiative. I don't understand how anyone can trust politicians to decide how this will affect all these laws. Everyone I know that supports this initiative as also in the “keep the government out of my life” / Tea Party camp. You can’t have it both ways.

On a side note, I’ve noticed over the last few weeks that all the yes voters have changed their speak to “conception” instead of what the initiative says, “fertilization”. There is a big difference in these two words and is misrepresenting the impact of this initiative relating to birth control issues.

I have seen much discussion over concerns that language of the ammendment does not fully address some difficult aspects of this issue. But that is not the point.

The constitution, and ammendments thereto, are meant to lay down the foundation that all other laws are measured against. It is then up to the legislature, courts and executive to further address and develop the issues.

That is the way our system works. Consider the alternative....2 million plus Mississippians trying to have discourse over the fine points of this issue.

The intent of this proposition is to set the baseline....do we the people think that babies in the womb are people that deserve protection and consideration under the law....or do we not.

+1 @7:19 & @7:23.

An amendment is typically broad. Legislatures and courts then expand (see the 1st Amendment) or reduce (see the 2nd Amendment) the scope of the language. The amendment lays down the principles and statutes and case law govern how we live out those principles.

Also, aren't there any No on 26ers who feel just a little queasy aligning with Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the "No on 27" crowd, and Bill Chandler and his merry band of illegals?

26 doesn't protect "babies in the womb", it makes persons out of cloned humans or fertilized eggs. A "person" in the form of a fertilized egg could no more be frozen without its consent than could you or I. Under 26 doctors would be in jeopardy of murder charges if he or she chose to terminate an ectopic pregnancy to save the mother's life. The doctor could no more do that than could she muder a teenager to provide a heart for a transplant patient. NO doctor could choose to kill one "person" in order to save another's life.

My very basic understanding of constitutional theory is that rights granted by the Constitution can not be limited by law except in situations where a clear danger to the state or to the safety of the community is involved. So can the legislature then pass laws to "clarify" how this amendment is to be understood, laws that can withhold judicial scrutiny? The Mississippi Constitution is the law of the land here, will the judiciary be free to interpret legislation by any measure other than how the Constitution is worded?

In light of that, a couple of questions, based on some wording in our State Constitution:

§8 All persons, resident in this state, citizens of the United States, are hereby declared citizens of the state of Mississippi.

QUESTION: If a fertilized egg is a person, then is a fertilized egg a citizen? What does that mean?

§14 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.

QUESTION: If a fertilized egg is a person, then how would it be legal for a doctor to end an eptopic pregnancy without violating the laws that support this section of the constitution? Will property ownership be transferrable to fertilized eggs? How can the legislature pass laws to keep birth control legal and allow doctors to treat women without runnin afoul of that basic claim of the State Constitution?

§24 All courts shall be open; and every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay.

QUESTION: If a fertilized egg is a person, then will a fertilized egg have the right to bring legal action against one perceived to have done it injury, such as it's mother or a doctor? Would a thrid party be able to file action on that fertilized egg's behalf? Will the state be expected to file such action? How does the legislature deal with such situations without violating the Constitution?

Keep in mind, these sections all come from the Mississippi Bill of Rights, which is a series of positive affirmations of rights of individuals. Where limitations are intended, they are actually stated in the Constitution, such as:

§21 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in the case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it, nor ever without the authority of the legislature.

The Constitution is clear when it expects the Legislature to "clarify" something -- it uses language like this:

§27 ... the legislature, in cases not punishable by death or by imprisonment in the penitentiary, may dispense with the inquest of the grand jury, and may authorize prosecutions before justice court judges, or such other inferior court or courts as may be established, and the proceedings in such cases shall be regulated by law.

There is nothing in the 26 language that provides for such regulation.

The INTENT of those supporting 26 is one thing -- the RESULT of it can very well end up being something totally different. I don't trust our state government to make those distinctions wisely.

Everyone seems to be debating their position based on the what-if's rather than on the initiative itself.

The initiative simply states that you believe a "person" is defined as when the egg + sperm combine no matter the means in which they did so. Yes or no, you should vote based on that.

Just want to say I'm enjoying this debate and y'all are making some great points and doing it well.

9:11 the proposition has consequences and you are arguing to ignore those consequences.

So, first you are asking voters to be irrational and make a decision without regard to consequences.

Secondly, you are asking voters to trust government to interpret and implement this " initiative". That is just ridiculous. ( AND, IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL ADMENDMENT you want, not a public opinion poll)

And,last but not least, by eliminating some forms of birth control, you are forcing pregnancy on women and imposing a death sentence on women who do not share your religious beliefs and most of whom know a helluva lot more about their reproductive system than you do. That is unAmerican.

You, in short, are asking voters not to engage in critical thinking and to remain ignorant because you want YOUR beliefs imposed on everyone.

A fertilized egg (soon to be a "person" in Mississippi) can lead to a molar pregnancy. (They are usually 46 XX chromosomes). They are surgically removed by being scraped out of the "womb." This is intentional destruction and it saves the mom.

When the pathologist finds a molar pregnancy in a container removed from a patient, he will now be witness to a crime scene. Will the pathologist now need to call the police?

8:05, the pro-life/No on 26ers certainly don't feel odd aligning themselves with the National Right to Life, which also does not support 26.

8:05, I feel pretty good about aligning myself with our Mississippi infertility physicians, the MS State Medical Association, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, and the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Oh, and also with the bishop of my church, the Rt. Rev. Duncan Gray.

Right is right, regardless of who else is on the same side.

9:11 here in response to 9:47

I am not trying to mislead, trick, or ask anyone to avoid critical thought with their vote on the initiative.

The initiative is simple...when does life begin to you "yes" at fertilization or "no" at some later point in time.

The consequences that come with that vote, I agree are multi-fold and will need to be addressed.

Consider the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution - each one on its face is simple and justified, however we know that there are exceptions to them. For example, Amendment 1 "freedom of speech" does not allow us to yell fire in a movie theater. Amendment 2, the right to bear arms does not allow everyone to bring weapons to all places.

You see in each case, you can agree that the amendment is justified, and at the same time you understand that we will have to set parameters in dealing with its application.

Initiative 26 is asking in very basic terms, when do you believe life begins. IF it passes, then its intent (http://www.sos.ms.gov/page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=50) will need to be addressed in the amendments application.

I am a conservative, a Republican and pro-life. I can't support this Initiative 26 though, because I don't believe this is the right way to go about it. Pass laws to restrict abortion. Make abortion illegal but do not interfere with IVF, birth control, or sometimes heart-wrenching medical decisions that are better left to doctors and their patients. I have an IUD and it is the best birth control I've ever had. Am I a murderer? No. This initiative goes too far and I pray that it does not succeed tomorrow.

I am concerned about the inflammatory language being used by some of the "Pro-life" people. Who really isn't a Pro-Life person? We are all for it. The term they use as "Pro-Abortion" is misleading and inaccurate. No one is really "pro-abortion." What people want is to have the right to terminate a pregnancy remain as a safe medical procedure that is between a woman and her doctor. And they are inaccurate in saying that deep down we all believe that life begins at conception. If we did agree, this debate would not exist.

11:52, the exceptions to the 1st Amendment is for threats of harm to the state or community. That's why they say "crowded theatre," not simply "theatre." The exceptions to the 2nd amendment are also about the safety of the state and community.

Please note that in both cases, the basic right still exists for the individual, there are simply consequences for misusing your rights. The legislative body maintains the right for you -- but it puts limitations on YOU, even though it's YOUR right.

If I, as a citizen, decide to deprive you of a right guaranteed under the Constitution, I am the bad actor. I would face the consequences.

Under "personhood," you aren't talking about a situation where the fertilized egg misuses a right and has those rights thusly limited -- I think ANYONE arguing that a fertilized egg "deciding" to implant itself in a fallopian tube instead of the uterus would be laughed out of court. Under personhood, the state would be giving rights to fertilized eggs, where the mother, the doctors, etc., would be the bad actors.

You can limit a right-holder's exercise of rights for specific reasons -- you cannot, however, give other individuals legal permission to limit the holder's exercise of rights because of the individual's needs.

Our US and State Constitutions are based on the theory of the individual -- the "person" -- as the most important part of our society. Once you grant ALL rights of "persons" to fertilized eggs, you are creating a HUGE mess.

Let me end by saying I am pro-life. Had this been a proposal to make abortion illegal in Mississippi, I'd be behind it. But because it's not, I'm not.

I have been going back and forth on this amendment for weeks. I've done my research. I've read just about every opinion there is out there on this topic. I've read all the "what ifs". Will women die because they cannot legally end ectopic pregnancies? Will women die because they can't receive cancer treatment because they're pregnant? Will women die because they are suffering from severe preeclampsia but cannot legally terminate the pregnancy to save themselves? Will in vitro fertilization be outlawed in MS? Will it be restricted so much that it will have a much lower success rate? Will birth control be banned? If not all birth control, will some forms be banned? The list goes on and on and on.

I'm honestly STILL not 100% certain how I will vote tomorrow. At first I was leaning towards "yes" because I was letting the emotional aspect of it get to me. I want to save the lives of the innocent babies who are murdered by abortion. I want to save the lives of the IVF embryos that are discarded. Then, I really sat back and thought about it, and I realized I was thinking about 26 in completely the wrong way. I'm now leaning heavily towards voting "no", and I'll tell you why.

It's not because "Parents Against 26" or any other group have convinced me that any of their arguments are right.

I despise the tactics used by Planned Parenthood in their campaign against 26. I am disgusted that pro-26ers have turned this into an emotional vote. I am equally disgusted that anti-26ers have done the exact same thing. Because the truth is, this is absolutely NOT about what your personal moral/religious beliefs are. It is NOT about whether you believe life begins at fertilization. It is NOT about whether you think in vitro fertilization, birth control, etc., will be affected by 26. It is NOT about ending abortion.

It IS about whether you believe the GOVERNMENT should have the right to step between you and your doctor and tell you what kind of medical treatment you can and cannot receive.

I believe life begins at fertilization. I am against abortion, with only two exceptions: to preserve the life of the mother and in situations of rape/incest. And in both of those situations, yes, I absolutely do believe you are ending the life of a person, but I also believe it should be allowed. I do believe there should be stricter standards on IVF, because I do believe every fertilized egg/embryo is a life. I believe in the restriction of the types of birth control that prevent implantation (as opposed to the ones that prevent fertilization). I believe the "morning after" pill should only be allowed in situations of rape/incest.

HOWEVER, my personal religious and moral beliefs on when life begins are not going to make me vote "yes" tomorrow. That's because my vote tomorrow is for the GOVERNMENT to stay OUT of my doctor's office and OUT of my personal health decisions, whatever they may be.

I just received a pro-26 call from Phil Bryant. He stated in his message that Planned Parenthood is lying when they say 26 could put mothers at risk. He also said Planned Parenthood is lying when they say it will outlaw in vitro fertilization in MS. He ended by saying that 26 is about one thing, and that is ending abortion.

I am voting tomorrow for Phil Bryant. I support him. He is right, 26 IS about one thing, but he is wrong when he says that one thing is ending abortion. It's not about voting for or against abortion...it's about voting for or against government involvement in your personal medical decisions. Period. That's why I'm heavily leaning towards voting NO.

9:11
An proposed amendment to the State Constitution is not a mere survey of opinion. There is much more at stake here.

http://mslj.law.olemiss.edu/supra/index.html

This fleshes out some of the legal implications. The truly mind boggling part to me is the number of man hours, legal fees, lost productivity, etc. (on both sides) that will go into fighting this issue, and the fact that, even if it passes, it is clearly unconstitutional and will change nothing. What a huge waste of time.

Two things that should not be poorly-worded: marriage proposals and constitutional amendments.

Big day for "Concern Trolls".

It struck me tonight, this initiative has done more to bring together the extremes than any initiative in recent years, whether that be at the State or National level.

It is amazing to listen to the dialogue from both sides from many friends. The argument supporting this initiative is not resonating with the public, everywhere.

You were going to explain the HIPAA implications.............

When this passes today, and sadly that is likely...it will have one more negative consequence that no one has mentioned.

It will confirm to the rest of the Nation that Mississippi is " backwards" and adversely affect economic development.

Who would want to bring their wives and daughters here and put them at risk?

If the polls didn't indicate this will pass the politicians running for office wouldn't be supporting the admendment.

So, be prepared for the horror show to begin.

I'm very glad now my daughters and granddaughters left. That's the only silver lining I can find.

I heard a NEW negative on TV this morning, one I hadn't heard of. Can't decide how I feel about it.

CNN interviewed a woman who claimed that the problem with 26 is that illegal aliens will flock to Mississippi so their babies will have some form citizenship status upon conception. She said that everyone in Mississippi is scared that we will be taken over by illegals because of 26.

Seriously? That's being used as an argument against 26? Interesting that CNN chose to cover the story by pitting radical pro-life against xenophobia.

KF, too of my Mississippi friends who now live out of state, emailed me this AM to tell me they got a robo call from Barbour saying he opposed the personhood admendment. This was NOT the interview clip.

They are AS curious about how he found them and why as they are about his REAL position.

Could you ask his office about this?

11:52 if you REALLY believe this admendment is " simple" then you haven't read this blog and have been duped by the extreme fringes of the pro-life movement.

12:00PM -- Whoa! I had not thought of that angle--very interesting indeed! Thanks!