Comments by individuals and organizations who supported and opposed the amendment (Continued):
"Will", a legal expert, said: "The concern is that you could have local prosecutors that as soon as this amendment goes into place would say 'OK, well clearly this is the policy the people of this state want, so now I'm going to use our code to investigate miscarriages and in-vitro fertilization."
The Mississippi Baptist Convention, the largest Christian denomination in the state, strongly supported the amendment through its lobbying group. 1
The bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi and the General Conference of the United Methodist Church opposed Proposition 26.
Roman Catholic Bishop Joseph Latino of the Diocese of Jackson issued a statement that neither supported nor opposed the amendment.
The Mississippi State Medical Association also took a neutral stance. Doctors Against MS 26 and other medical associations opposed it. 1
Jonathan F. Will, director of the Bioethics and Health Law Center at the Mississippi College of Law, questioned whether the voters could understand the full implications of the amendment.
He said: "My first thought, literally, was people aren't going to understand what this means ... what implications it has beyond abortions." 2
Terri Herring is the national director for the Pro-Life America network and an advisory board member for the state group Yes on 26. She said:
"In Mississippi, we have the opportunity to lead the way on a social justice issue. We may have been behind on civil rights, but we can be ahead on human rights, and that's what personhood is really all about. ... If a woman was attacked and her unborn child was killed, it would be fetal homicide. That is considered a person. But on that very same day in the same area, a woman could go and have an abortion and kill her child, and nothing would happen.
So we have a contradiction, and that is what we're trying to fix here. ... We're trying to say there is another way besides abortion, that there can be a home for every child. Not every unwanted child has to die. There are over a million couples waiting to adopt. It's time to stop the senseless killing of children. We can provide these children, if people don't want them, to all of those who cannot have children themselves and stop the rush of people going to Russia, China and other areas to get children. ... [Those opposed to Proposition 26 should] stop the fear-mongering and the tactics that are just talking about outrageous things that we do not believe will happen. ... This is really about saying, 'What did our forefathers intend when they used the word "person"?' I think very clearly, there is no way that long ago they had any intention of not including the unborn as a person. So in my mind, this is a historic vote, and it provides the people to have a voice in protecting life." 2
Susan Jacoby, writing as "The Spirited Atheist" for the Washington Post commented:
"This amendment, to be voted on Nov. 8 in Mississippi, goes far beyond the familiar claim of anti-abortion activists that the fetus is a person (an assertion explicitly rejected in Roe v. Wade). The medical definition of a viable pregnancy has always been the point at which a fertilized egg is implanted in a woman’s uterus. Many long-established forms of contraception, including the IUD, work by preventing implantation."
"Then there are potentially fatal accidents of nature, in which the egg, instead of proceeding to the uterus, becomes stuck in one of the fallopian tubes in what is called an ectopic pregnancy. The embryo can never develop into a live birth and the ectopic pregnancy must be ended or the tube will rupture and the woman will die. Before there were blood tests to reveal the failure of an egg to implant normally, most women did die from ectopic pregnancy. One of the obvious dangers of this amendment would be the prosecution of doctors for performing a standard life-saving procedure. We are talking here about a medical measure to save the life of a real person, not of a group of cells that can never become a person because nature has made an error. ..."
"Proposition 26 strips away the pretense -- which all anti-abortion groups try to maintain -- that ordinary birth control, practiced by Americans of all faiths, would not also be affected by declaring the 'personhood' of every embryo. The leaders of these groups are well aware that most Americans, including those who oppose abortion, regard birth control in quite a different and positive light."
"This proposal is so extreme, in fact, that it has split the anti-abortion movement. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee -- neither of which could be called 'soft on abortion' -- are not supporting the amendment because they think it would interfere with their efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade. Their fear is that even the current Supreme Court, with its conservative (and Roman Catholic) majority, might not uphold an amendment that would interfere with standard contraception and with surgery to save a woman from certain death."
"But the usual suspects, the far-right Christian American Family Association and Family Research Council, are pushing the proposal not only with their voices but their money."
"The amendment would of course also have a major impact on infertile couples trying to become pregnant through in vitro fertilization, since it would prohibit the destruction of any spare embryos stored in laboratories. It would also prevent the use of the 'morning-after' pill in all instances, including rape and incest." 3
We attempted to locate a statement on the Internet by either the Family Research Council or the American Family Association on Proposition 26 without success.
One News Now, a conservative Christian news source, published an article claiming that those opposing Proposition 26 were circulating lies about the impact of the amendment. It started by stating an error of their own:
"If passed, Proposition 26 would outlaw abortion in Mississippi."
In reality, Prop. 26 would not make abortions illegal because it conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision "Roe v. Wade" in 1973. Thus it would be clearly unconstitutional and could never be enforced.
The article quotes Brad Prewitt, a "Yes on 26" spokesperson. He said:
"Does it outlaw contraception? No; definitively, no. What it does outlaw is pharmaceuticals that act as a human pesticide of sorts, almost a chemical abortive agent, such as RU-486, that takes a conceived life and it kills that life -- you know, a confirmed pregnancy -- and you take that and you're going to kill that child."
He did not discuss two other common contraceptive methods: the Morning After Pill and the IUD, both of which would be criminalized by Prop. 26 if it were ever found to be constitutional.
denied a claim by the opposition that would criminalize "doctors who perform life-saving surgeries on pregnant mothers." He is apparently referring to abortions performed on women with ectopic pregnancies. Since such surgeries kill the developing embryo, it would seem that Prop. 26 would criminalize the procedure. By not being able to perform life-saving surgeries, both the embryo and woman would certainly die.
Finally, the article discusses allegations that miscarriages would be criminalized. This appears to be a mischaraterization of the opposition's statement. The latter suggested that criminal investigations might be mounted in the case of a miscarriages in order to confirm that it ocurred due to natural causes and was not induced manually by the woman using a coat hanger. 4
OneNewsNow appended a YouTube video to the article titled "Will Personhood Ban Contraceptives?" In it, Dr. Freda Bush allegedly addresses accusations aganstt Prop. 26. But Ginny Lindley Leonard posted a comment to the article saying that: "... all the video provides is a doctor saying that the 'accusations' are untrue! Where is the explanation?" We are initially unable to verify her concern because playing the video produces only an error message stating" "This video is private."
However, accessing the video directly on YouTube.com is still possible:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.