'Personhood' prop divides Miss. religious leaders

[rug]

Thursday, Nov. 03, 2011
By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS - Associated Press

JACKSON, Miss. -- In the Bible Belt state of Mississippi, people of faith are split on a "personhood" initiative that will be decided on next Tuesday's ballot.

Initiative 26 would amend the state constitution to declare life begins at fertilization.

The state's largest religious group, the Mississippi Baptist Convention, supports the proposal, as does the Tupelo-based American Family Association, a conservative Christian group that has a radio network and opposes abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Rev. Jimmy Porter, executive director of the Baptist Convention's lobbying group, the Christian Action Commission, said the convention has about 2,000 churches and 670,000 members in Mississippi. Porter has been campaigning for the initiative.

http://www.sunherald.com/2011/11/03/3551427/personhood-prop-splits-miss-religious.html

[opihimoimoi]

1. Porter seems to be an attention whore....negative results are predicted

for the exercise with time wasted we will never get back...

Married couples face prosecution should their fetus die.

The Cops wsill demand all med records etc and drag yo ass into court...

The rev should go to the corner and STFU

[Jim__]

2. What effect does this have on Roe v Wade?

In my reading of this decision, the protection of a woman's right to an abortion is not based on personhood, but on viability and the stage of the pregnancy (I assume there are more details at pages 147 - 164, but I can't find those pages at this location):

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

[rug]

3. I think they're aiming this proposition directly at Roe v. Wade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=81NrWq3p5Ag

[Jim__]

4. Do you think that would work as a legal tactic?

IIRC, you are a lawyer. Do you have an opinion on this? Do you know if the details of the decision address the issue of the personhood of the fetus? If the decision itself doesn't mention fetal personhood, would this law overturn Roe based on the questioning that went on?

[rug]

5. I'm not up on this area of law.

But the first problem Misssissippi would have is preemption. A state law cannot preeempt federal law and Roe has been upheld, and its principles explicated for 40 years. I don't think a state measure would undo that. These people are relying too much on questions during oral argument and tangential remarks (obiter dicta) in the decision and not enough on the legal ananlysis and stated precedent.

That said, if they ever succeeded in passing this on a federal level, a federal recognotion of personhood would be extremely powerful to their cause. It would be very hard o ideny to a fetus, or to a zygote if the Missippi language were used, the protections afforded to persons outside a womb.

It's interesting to me that the Catholic Church is taking no position on the Mississippi proposition.

[Jim__]

6. Thanks - n/t

[rug]

7. Here's an update.

Mississippi Catholic Bishop, Religious Leaders Denounce Personhood Anti-Abortion Bill

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/04/361337/mississippi-catholic-bishop-religious-leaders-denounce-personhood-anti-abortion-bill/

Here's the reason.

'In the letter called Personhood Mississippi “a noble initiative.” However, he said, “I join with Catholic bishops in several other states in not endorsing personhood petitions to be circulated in our Catholic parishes. We have committed ourselves to working for a federal amendment and feel the push for a state amendment could ultimately harm our efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.”'

[NMMNG]

8. So it's not a matter of their concern for women

They just want to avoid the potential harm to their political agenda against women.

[rug]

9. I don't think it's anti-women per se, it's that women are sceondary.

That's worse in my view.

But the politics at play here, shrewd though it is, is rankly cynical. Taken at face value, the RCC should support this measure since it considers abortion to be heinous and all governmental actions to stop it must be taken. Instead, it opposes this measure, presumably thereby allowing abortion - a heinous sin - to continue unabated in Mississippi, while the RCC bides its time and place. It's cynicism at its finest.

The bottom line: government should not be used to enforce morality.

[Jim__]

10. Thanks for the update. I'm surprised that the Catholic Church isn't supporting this.

But not surprised that their position is a political strategy.