Today voters in Mississippi will vote on an amendment to the state Constitution that would designate inseminated human eggs as legal persons from the “moment of fertilization.” The ramifications of such an amendment will outright challenge Roe v. Wade, abortion and contraception. And Republicans would like to make this a federal plan.
As reported by Mother Jones, the Mississippi amendment “alters the state’s Constitution so that the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” This new term is being called “Personhood,” and would give rights to and equal protection under the law — to a zygote. If a zygote is considered a legal person, abortion would be equivalent to murder, as would almost anything that interfered with the zygote’s development. This would include the morning-after pill and IUDs (intrauterine devices), since both prevent fertilized egg implantation.
“It’s not even abortion, it’s not even pregnancy-that’s how far back this reaches,” says Donna Crane, the policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. “It’s possibly the most extreme position you can take on this issue and far to the right of where most right-to-life individuals are.”
This is said to be the most radical proposed anti-abortion law in existence. The implications could be huge. Basically if this goes through, and a federal case can be made, it could possibly mean the end of Roe v. Wade as we know it. Planned Parenthood would be but a dream that once was. Of course Congress is weighing in on the debate. Identical language with regard to fertilization as personhood has appeared on three bills endorsed by Republicans in the House including, Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and you guessed it, the HPV vaccine fighting queen herself, Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
“There is no greater protection that we as a government can give to protect human beings all the way from the time of fertilization until they have natural deaths,” Rep. Paul Broun says.
Hmm, yes, about that. Valerie Tarico, author, ‘Trusting Doubt’ and founder, WisdomCommons.org has an interesting take on the statement “fertilization until they have natural deaths.” She asks:
God or nature aborts approximately half of all fertilized eggs, most before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. These fertilized eggs end up, at a certain time of the month, wrapped in tissue in waste baskets before being picked up by garbage trucks. If these bundles contain deceased persons, then the state of Mississippi to my mind has responsibility to grant each of these small packets the most basic and ancient dignities of personhood: a name and a proper burial. Perhaps the organizations that have come together to pass the legislation can devote themselves to bringing in the dead and then providing some ritual to honor each person on his or her way to the grave.
Once this system of naming and last rites is in place, should they not turn state medical resources to saving these lives? Are any of the micro-persons still alive at the moment when God or nature aborts them? How about between the moment of fertilization and expulsion? Could they be kept alive?
Sounds ludicrous, right? Maybe. Or Maybe not. This is exactly what this legislation is saying when they want to start determining what makes a person. Do we ascribe all of our traditional mores onto a zygote? At the heart of it, Tarico asks three major questions: What defines personhood? What is this so-called person capable of experiencing; what is this entity capable of doing? And what are the rights and responsibilities on all sides that derive from each of these?
And if we’re going down the well of responsibility and fallout, what about those mothers who choose to abort? Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-Calif.) HR 374, a tweaked version of one of those three bills proposed in Congress, includes a clause that says it does not “require” (although it does allow) “the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.” The bill has 91 co-sponsors, including Michele Bachmann. It’s interesting to note that none of the personhood bills contain any exemptions for victims of rape or incest.
The thing is, once this kind of door is opened there’s no way to tell where it may stop. It’s a very scary thing once the government starts deciding what does and what does not constitute a person. I don’t even want to think of the racial implications, of how it will affect immigration, citizenship, and perhaps gender equality.
And there may be cause to worry, polls show the Mississippi personhood bill stands a good chance of passing. Not surprisingly efforts are underway in at least six states to adopt similar laws via constitutional amendments.
Update:
Initiative 26, or the “Personhood” proposal was defeated by voters in Mississippi this evening. However the group Personhood USA who pushed for the proposal say they won’t be deterred and have plans to put similar initiatives on 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio and Oregon, Nevada and California. This may be a victory for the battle, but the war is not yet won.
