Today, Yes On 26 held a press conference to “expose” what they’re calling the “scare tactics” about 26. You can watch their videos here.
If you’re not up for watching the video, the summary is that they called the switchboards of local hospitals and asked the switchboard operators if birth control would still be available. They then called unnamed “local pharmacists”, whom they decline to identify. Finally, they called Planned Parenthood.
Perhaps they should have called Walter Hoye, spokesperson for Personhood USA, instead. Here’s what he told Diane Rehm this morning, live on NPR:
Hoye: Any birth control that ends the life of that human being will be impacted by this measure.
Rehm: So that would then include the IUD. What about the birth control pill?
Hoye: That falls into the same category, yes.
Rehm: So you’re saying that birth control pills could be considered as taking the life of a human being?
Hoye: I’m saying that once the egg and the sperm come together and you have that single-cell embryo, at that point you have human life inside a human being, and you’re taking the life of the human being with some forms of birth control. And if birth control pills fall into that category, yes, I am.
(Hoye’s interview starts at 08:50. The birth control portion of the interview starts at about 13:10.)
Or maybe they should have called Beverly McMillan, sometime spokesperson and member of the Yes On 26 Advisory board (who, for that matter, was right there at the press conference). After all, Dr. McMillan is on record as stating that she “painfully agrees that birth control pills do in fact cause abortion.” She’s also well known in the Jackson community for refusing to prescribe birth control pills.
Or they could ask Personhood Colorado, which is pretty clear that only barrier methods would be permitted under personhood, and which speaks of “the pill, including all its chemical abortifacient variants like the patch, the ring, Depo-Provera and Norplant” as being incompatible with personhood.
Or maybe they could ask Dr. Walt Larimore, a well-known pro-life advocate. Dr. Larimore has published papers in peer-reviewed journals to support his contention that “good evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of oral contraceptives depends to some degree on postfertilization effects”. Dr. Larimore states that post-fertilization effects are more likely with progestin-only pills, lower-dose combined pills, and imperfect use of any type of birth control pill.
it seems clear to us that failure to inform patients of a possible postfertilization mechanism of an OC is a failure to provide informed consent….
The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization. Since it would be difficult to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent.
Nobody, not even Planned Parenthood, is claiming that birth control pills will disappear from pharmacy shelves on November 9. For one, the initiative wouldn’t even take effect until December 9 — and there is excellent reason to think it would be blocked by court order while the inevitable lawsuits get sorted out. For another, it is a matter of great debate within the legal community how and when ANYTHING will be affected by 26. It’s not even clear that the abortion clinic would be forced to shut down unless and until local prosecutors or the attorney general show up at the door.
Regardless, second-order effects such as birth control and IVF would probably not happen immediately (although it’s very possible you may see doctors refusing to prescribe BCP or practice IVF to protect themselves). This would probably happen as a result of either judicial decisions and/or legislative action. What 26 does is open the door to permit that kind of judicial and legislative control.
Right now, you have an absolute right to use any form of birth control you like, or handle your IVF embryos as you and your doctor think best. If 26 passes, you have given up that right, in exchange for the hope that the legislative and judicial implementation will go the way you want it to.
I don’t trust the government to make those kinds of decisions, any more than I trust my lawyer to tell me how to treat infertility. I don’t trust them to decide whether embryo freezing should be allowed, or how many eggs my doctor can try to fertilize, or whether I should be able to use an IUD to treat my endometriosis.
The Mississippi state government can’t draw up voting districts without federal intervention. Why should I trust them to get such complex health-care issues right?
And why on earth should I trust a group whose press conferences say one thing, and whose spokespeople so frequently say another, when they don’t think that the voters are listening?
It’s their complete lack of honesty that makes me angriest. Either stand by your initiative and everything it means, or admit that it’s ludicrous and dangerous. If you have to use deception to win people to your side, your side is WRONG.
I could not agree more! This is exactly why I am taking the stand I have and why they are calling me a heretic. At all costs, be honest.
Great post. Here is my response to Mississippi’s draconian anti-abortion bill that would also ban some forms of birth control.
http://sisterescape.blogspot.com/2011/10/mississippi-goddam.html
Well my wife and I will be voting FOR initiative 26. We’ve seen conflicting information from both sides. In the end, we decided that the best way to filter through the hype was to look and see who is opposing 26. I see Planned Parenthood and the liberal church groups like the United Methodists and the Episcopalians, the Clarion Ledger, all the usual suspects, are opposing 26. That alone is enough reason for me to vote for 26.
That’s a great reason to be for something… see who is against it instead of using your brain.
I was wondering what conflicting information you were talking about? The yeson26 folks have been crystal clear that IUDs will be outlawed under personhood. The national personhood movement has gone on record saying that BCPs are a form of abortion. One of the ‘doctors’ on the yeson26 side, prior to her retirement, refused to prescribe BCPs to her patients because she believed it was a form of abortion and has gone on record saying so. These are *actual* remarks and actions for these radicals. No conflicting information whatsoever as to what their beliefs and goals are for this amendment.
I am also wondering what conflicting information you are hearing from the MS Medical Association and other health organizations and doctors, both regional and national? They are all against MS26 due to the public health crisis it will create. Last I heard, these organizations are not funded by Planned Parenthood. Perhaps you may want to consider letting doctors make public health decisions, not the yeson26 people without medical training.
With regards to the ‘fear tactics’ – how is the yeson26 group any different? They have obviously convinced you to not think for yourself, instead you should do what they say so as to not be aligned with evil organizations like Planned Parenthood or those liberal Methodists. Anybody who disagrees with the yeson26 folks have been censored, banned from posting comments on their site, and accused of being part of these evil groups. It is only a matter of time until they try to discredit the many ‘evil’ doctors who have come out against this!
Keep up the great work, Atlee!
Dear ProLife Mississippian-
I understand what you’re thinking, I really do. I have dear, dear, friends and family who have expressed to me their similar concerns about this amendment. But I think with this particular issue, you should give more consideration to jumping feet first into the Yes On 26 Movement just because the United Methodists and Episcopalians are opposing it. And though their leadership have already shared their reasons for voting NO on 26, I can understand that that’s not enough for you. Maybe you’ve already seen the letter written by Dr. James Nichols, Pastor of First Baptist Church in Greenville. If you have, I urge you to read it again, and share it with those you believe may feel the same way you do. At least give them the opportunity to see it– his letter may be a little too late to reach the audience he most wants to see it. After this, Dr. Nichols will likely be a hero to some and a heretic to others. I urge you and your family to prayerfully consider offering your full support to a man who perhaps had more to lose than some of the other religious leaders in the state. There is no shame in changing course in the eleventh hour. I implore you to consider that the reason so many of us oppose this amendment is not that we don’t love unborn babies, or that we don’t believe in the sanctity of human life as can only be provided by God, but because this particular measure and those who support it simply cannot provide the answers about what will happen if it is passed.
The letter is long, but I’m including the full text here:
November 3, 2011
RE: MISSISSIPPI’S INITIATIVE 26 (THE PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT)
Dear Friends,
Many of you have called inquiring about Initiative 26, also known as the Personhood Amendment to the Mississippi State Constitution, that we will be asked to vote on this Tuesday, November 8th. I am sure everyone has seen commercials on television or read propaganda material pushing viewpoints both for and against this initiative. While I do not normally weigh in on electoral issues, I feel compelled to share with you my research and conclusions. After all, this is an amendment that speaks to a moral issue. Please do not view this email as my way of persuading your vote. However, I do ask that you research this issue, consider the facts, and make the best decision possible on November 8th.
Before I share with you my thoughts regarding Initiative 26, you need to know how I came to my conclusions. First, I did good old-fashion research. I read websites and articles from people who represent both viewpoints. Then, I found articles and website that spoke to the issue objectively. By not having a “dog in the fight,” I found these 3rd party articles very helpful. They presented facts and logic that was not intertwined with the emotional side of this issue.
Second, I used my faith as a guide as I sifted through the facts and opinions. It should go without saying that since I am a pastor, that I approach all subjects from a Christian mindset. My Christian faith cannot be separated from who I am, nor can my values be overlooked when making moral choices.
Third, I began my research with two clear beliefs. I am unashamedly against abortion and I am whole-heartedly pro-life as it concerns the unborn. This may be an easy stance for me to take as a male, but my personal opinion is that abortion in a travesty against the unborn. (As a side note, I am pro-life regarding the unborn but I am not against the death penalty. While this may seem disingenious, I view the death penalty as punishment for an adult who makes a conscience action to do wrong, while abortion is an act against an innocent bystander.)
When I first heard of Initiative 26, I was supportive of the movement. But the more I heard about it, the less sure I was of it. Thus, my journey began.
I began with the Bible. I wanted to know what the Bible said regarding unborn life in the womb. After all, as a Christian, the Bible is foundational to my morality and values. I discovered that the unborn are known to God. (Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”) As I continued my search, I found that the Bible teaches we are created by God and that he watches over us in the womb. (Psalm 139:13-16 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”) Then, I learned that the life of an unborn child has the same value as the rest of us. (Exodus 21:22-23 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life….”) Regarding this latter point, we have similar laws today. For example, if a drunk driver hits a pregnant women and kills both she and her unborn child, the driver can be charged with the criminal negligence of both deaths. So the Bible seems to be clear. The unborn have value and importance in the eyes of God.
From my biblical search, I examined the wording of Initiative 26 fromPersonhood Mississippi, which is supported and guided by its mother organization Personhood USA. The initiative, if passed, would “amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word ‘person’ or ‘persons’, as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” On the surface, this seems to be something that every Christian should support. After all, it sounds very pro-life. The hope ofPersonhood Mississippi is that this initiative will help end abortion, but will it? Perhaps. Or, perhaps this amendment will do more harm than good to the pro-life movement by creating unnecessary fall-out and unintended consequences.
I certainly understand the intent ofPersonhood Mississippi. I don’t question their heart, just their methods. They are hoping this initiative will cease abortions in Mississippi and ultimately challenge Roe vs. Wade nationally. Personhood Mississippi’s desire is admirable, and like me, you might be sympathetic toward that end. However, I’m not sure that Initiative 26 is the best vehicle to do either. The language and wording of this initiative is extremely vague. So vague, in fact, that it leaves too much room for alternative interpretations. I wish that Personhood Mississippi had defined more clearly the following concepts in their initiative:
1. What do they mean by “fertilization”? Yes, life begins at fertilization, as all medical science agrees. But what is fertilization? Is it the moment that the sperm and egg unite? Or, is it the point in time that the male chromosomes and the female chromosomes fuse together to create a new, unique DNA structure? If it’s the latter, this process can take 24-48 hours to complete. So in theory, you could have a situation where sperm has penetrated an egg, but the DNA required to create a unique individual doesn’t form for another 48 hours. So when, exactly, does life begin? If it’s at fertilization, what does Personhood Mississippiunderstand that word to mean? You see, fertilization is not so easy to define…not even for Personhood Mississippi.
2. How does “implantation” of the embryo into the uterine wall, or lack thereof, factor into this initiative? After fertilization, the newly formed embryo takes one to two weeks to travel down the fallopian tube to the uterus where it will attempt to implant itself into the uterine lining. Prior to this implantation, the embryo only has a short window of life. In other words, unless the embryo implants itself into the uterine wall, it cannot survive. However, once an embryo implants itself into the uterine wall, it is able to gain the nutrients and oxygen necessary to continue its development. (As a side note, the baby’s heart does not form and start beating until around day 22 in the pregnancy. This is after the point of implantation.) According to some estimations, over 50% of fertilized eggs never implant, due to malfunctioning chromosomes, improper cell divisions, or simple failure to implant. These embryos are simply discarded naturally during menstruation. If Personhood Mississippi wants to declare every embryo a living person at the moment of fertilization, how do they differentiate between those embryos that implant, or have a natural chance of longterm survival, from those that do not? And, how do they see the constitutional provisions granted to these embryonic persons being applied in both circumstances?
3. How does the “age of viability” factor into their definition of life? In medical terms, the age of viability is that moment in a pregnancy when the baby–should it need to be delivered–has a chance of survival. The youngest pre-term baby ever born was 21 weeks and 5 days into the pregnancy. At 21 weeks, a baby only has a 20% chance of survival. At 24 weeks it’s 40%, 26 weeks is 80%, etc. I wish Personhood Mississippi had defined their view of an embryo or fetus that is medically dependent on the mother verses one that has the potential to be self-viable. Furthermore, how do they view the issue of viability as it relates to the issue of defining life? For example, an embryo created for use during in vitro fertilization is undeniably a “life,” but those embryos are not viable (meaning, able to survive) longterm in, and of, themselves. Defining how viability directly relates to the issue of life would have averted numerous concerns as to how Initiative 26 will affect real-world, non-conventional applications.
4. What about non-viable pregnancies? Speaking of viability, I wish Personhood Mississippi would have addressed those instances in a pregnancy there the embryo has no chance for longterm survival due to inherit complications. For example, an embryo has no chance of survival if it is part of an ectopic pregnancy or a molar pregnancy. Furthermore, if a developing fetus’ heart simply stops beating for unknown natural reasons, how would Initiative 26 and the fetus’s constitutional rights to life affect the mother? Could she be charged with involuntary manslaughter or child neglect? Would Initiative 26 provide the government with an avenue to obtrude into her life, examining her lifestyle, behaviors, and eating habits? Without having addressed how Initiative 26 views and copes with non-viable pregnancies, we do not have any way of knowing.
Now, I’m not trying to scare anybody. I’m merely pointing out some of the issues created by the vague language in this initiative. I’ve heardPersonhood Mississippi leaders speak in regard to some of my concerns. However, they respond to these concerns with a simple, “Those things just won’t happen” or “It will all work itself out.” Pardon my comparison, but I’ve heard those promises before when concerns were raised about the Universal Healthcare Law that was before Congress (ObamaCare). Once voted into law, those promises didn’t hold water! Instead of taking Personhood Mississippi’s word for what will and won’t happen, I would have liked for them to be a little more specific in their wording of the initiative.
As it stands, Initiative 26 is too vague. I understand that most laws use vague language to maximize legislative reach and application. I also understand that vague language is sometimes necessary because certain terms are hard to define. When vague language in incorporated within a law, lawmakers understand that the specifics of how and when vague laws are applied is left in the hands of the judicial system, which is part of my problem with this initiative.
Consider this: If passed on November 8th, Initiative 26 will almost immediately be entangled in numerous lawsuits designed to define how, when, and where this definition of a person applies. The problem with this approach is that one judge or a panel of judges will be the one(s) to define this initiative’s application rather than allowing the people of Mississippi or their representatives to define its application. When left in the hands of our legislatures, we can at least call or write a letter to them stating our support for, or opposition against, certain measures, but you can’t write or call a judge. Our system of government isn’t set up this way. I’m uncomfortable with having one person decide how this initiative will impact all the people of our state. A more specific wording for Initiative 26 could have prevented these problems.
Furthermore, I’m not sure that the whole purpose of this initiative is going to work. Personhood Mississippi, and their mother organization Personhood USA, have openly stated that their intent is to use this law to ultimately challenge Roe vs. Wade in the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Initiative 26 opens the door for more fall-out than simply challenging Roe vs. Wade. I’m not willing to cut off the arm to save the hand. I’m pro-life and I’m anti-abortion, but I also understand that once an initiative, policy, or law is voted into being, they are often very hard to overturn. Just consider Roe vs. Wade. Why hasn’t it been overturned already? It’s not from lack of trying. No, it’s because once a law is in place, it’s hard to overturn it. That’s why I don’t think we’ll ever see the end of ObamaCare, the Department of Energy, the IRS, welfare, and I could go on. Even when a better way is discovered, it’s often hard to change the bedrock of government that’s been voted into place.
For these reasons, I cannot support Initiative 26. Perhaps the day will come when a better initiative is brought before the people of Mississippi to address abortion–an initiative that has been thought out and carefully worded. An initiative that comes from someone within our state, and not from an outside organization. When that day comes, I’ll be the first to get on board. Until then, I’m not willing to add to our foundation something that might cause our house to crumble. If you don’t feel the same way, I respect that. If you do, do me a favor and forward my email to your friends and family. My desire is to be a reasoned voice in an emotional debate.
By the way, here are a few links of some great articles that I found on this subject. I think you will enjoy them, too. (In fact, I was quite surprised to find something this objective from these sources!)
The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/opinion/mississippis-ambiguous-personhood-amendment.html?_r=1
The Mississippi Business Journal: http://msbusiness.com/2011/09/op-ed-life-and-law-—%C2%A0the-commitment-to-pre-embryonic-personhood/
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html?keyword=Haley+Barbour
I’m a Christian and I love Jesus…I’m pro-life and against abortion…and I love Mississippi…but I’ll be voting NO on Initiative 26 on Tuesday, November 8th.
Sincerely,
Dr. James L. Nichols, Jr.
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Greenville, MS
http://www.fbcgreenville.net
jnichols@fbcgreenville.net
I’ll be voting no, because I think we need less government, not more. I’ll be voting no because I don’t want to risk the lives of women with ectopic pregnancies. I’ll be voting no because there are infertile couples in Mississippi who need in vitro fertilization to conceive. I’ll be voting no because I don’t think a victim of rape should be violated a second time by the state. I’ll be voting no because I want access to birth control options so I can have a child when I am ready and able to rise to that responsibility. Mainly, I’ll be voting no because these situations are already difficult enough without the government sticking its nose in. I trust Mississippi families, not politicians, to make these hard decisions.
And to follow up – Regarding “the liberal church groups” you speak of, I might also point out – Bishop Joseph Latino of Mississippi’s Catholic Diocese has also gone on record in opposition of this initiative. I disagree that the Catholic Church might be considered “liberal” when it comes to pro-life issues.