The entire text of Initiative 26, the Personhood Amendment, reads as follows:
“The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from
the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.
Seriously, folks, that’s all it is. Twenty-one little words. Not one of them mentions an exception for IVF, or for lifesaving ectopic pregnancy treatment, or for birth control which might or might not be considered abortifacient.
When the Yes On 26 people tell you that “IVF and birth control won’t be banned! That’s a lie!”, you should ask them one question:
Is it because Freda Bush says so on YouTube? Dr. Bush is an OB-GYN, not a legislator or a justice. Is it because the Yes On 26 website says so? No, because Facebook and blog posts aren’t laws. The truth is, MS 26 is going to mean exactly what the state legislature and the judicial system eventually hash out that it says. Do you really want to trust that the legislature is going to come to the exact same conclusions that you would?
Yes On 26 hasn’t offered a single shred of evidence to support their contention that IVF and birth control will be protected, and the text of the amendment certainly doesn’t shed any light on the problem. They’re asking you to take their word for it, and give up your absolute rights to privacy and property, for the vague promise that the legislature will get it right.
When we here at Parents Against MS 26 say that the personhood amendment could potentially have major impacts on IVF, birth control, and reproductive care, we put several thousand words into telling you WHY we believe that. We want you to have the facts to judge for yourself. Don’t take our word for it — read our FAQ, and decide for yourself who’s offering facts and who’s asking you to take it on faith.
Even my five-year-olds know that “because I said so” isn’t a very good answer. So far, though, that’s the best answer the Yes On 26 campaign has offered up.