Monday, October 31, 2011

Mississippi Prop 26, defining a person, is more about social control than protecting all human life

Jessica Valenti has a monumental report in the Outlook section of the Sunday Oct. 30 Washington Post, “Pro-life’s new tactic: Redefine a ‘person’”, or, online, “How an anti-abortion push to redefine ‘person’ could hurt women’s rights”, link.  The continuation page. B4, reads “what if embryos and women had equal rights?”

The focus is a referendum for a Mississippi state constitutional amendment, “Should the term ‘person’ be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof?”
The problem is that women may not have the right to make informed medical decisions about their own lives, or even able to save their own lives, in some cases, of complicated advanced pregnancies.

This seems to be a new end-around of Roe v. Wade.

Herman Cain, GOP presidential candidate, has made a lot of opposing abortion.

But the real intention of this part of the pro-life movement is not really protecting the unborn child as a living human being. It is social control, or forced socialization. Perhaps forced submission. Think about it.

The amendment is Proposition 26, with this website.  The site even has a volunteer sign-up script.

Wikipedia attribution link for Vicksburg (MS) Memorial Arch.  I visited the site in April 1985.

Nov. 8:  Media sources report that Prop 26 has been rejected, by 55% majority. MSNBC story.

Update: Nov. 12

There is an important story in the New Yorker Nov. 14 by Jill Lepore under "American Chronicles", titled "Birthright: What's next for Planned Parenthood?" link here (subcription). She discusses a number of matters, like the Pence Amendment, and gives some pre-Griswold (1962)  history of the politics even of contraception, as with the Byrne and Sanger case in New York in 1917 when a court found that "no woman had 'the right to copulate with the feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.' In other words, if a woman wasn't willing to die in childbirth, she shouldn't have sex" (p. 49, print, Nov., 14).  That sort of mentality, and the risk that women used to take a century ago, helps explain the former obsession with gender complementarity. 

No comments: