BACK TO NEWS 

Defeat of Personhood Amendment Shows Power of The Faith Community

November 9, 2011
Religious leaders in Mississippi and RCRC supporters and activists who stood up for women's lives and dignity were instrumental in defeating the "personhood" amendment to the state constitution, which would state that personhood begins at fertilization and confer legal rights on embryos. Thank you to everyone who signed our online petition, volunteered your time, and sent in contributions to support our phone and on-the-ground outreach to voters. You made this historic victory over religious extremism possible.

When RCRC began organizing volunteers to spread the word about this dangerous attack on women's lives and on our democratic values, it seemed like an uphill battle. But with faith, courage and hard work, we prevailed. Yesterday, more than 55% of the voters rejected Initiative 26.

We defeated personhood initiatives twice before, in 2008 and 2010 in Colorado. But this victory in Mississippi was so important because Mississippi is the most conservative, religious and anti-choice state in the country. The proponents of the initiative figured Mississippi voters would listen to anti-choice politicians and pastors who told them "what the Bible says." They figured the voters would easily agree to change their constitution to state that "personhood begins at conception."

They were wrong. RCRC volunteers who talked to thousands of voters found they had doubts. They were concerned about the harm that Initiative 26 would do by basically ending access to reproductive health care in Mississippi - including banning all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the woman; some forms of contraception, and in vitro fertilization - and the frightening possibility that doctors would not be able to provide life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman. 

When clergy began to speak up, people listened. They didn't claim to be opposed to the amendment because they were pro-choice but because it was bad policy, would have unintended consequences, and imposed religious views. The Episcopal and the United Methodist bishops for Mississippi publicly opposed the measure. The Catholic bishop would not support it. A rabbi organized a letter signed by still other clergy. A forum was held in a Jackson church at which Reverend Timothy MacDonald - an RCRC clergy member and senior pastor of First Iconium Church in Atlanta - spoke against the amendment along with the head of the Mississippi NAACP and a local minister who identified himself as pro-life. The clergy who spoke out provided a moral foundation for voters to oppose the amendment, including voters who identified as pro-life.

Defeating the Mississippi initiative was just the beginning. The groups behind the personhood agenda have a larger strategy: they are motivated by personal religious views that they want to embed in law. They are pushing similar measures for 2012 in Florida, Ohio, Montana, California, Oregon, and Nevada. They have even announced intentions to put measures on the ballots of all 50 states. With the sacred values of compassion, religious freedom and moral decision-making at stake, RCRC is launching an education and advocacy campaign to raise moral concerns about this agenda.  Your emergency donation will help us launch the campaign nationally. We must act quickly to maintain the momentum of our victory. 

We have a solemn responsibility to educate our communities and congregations about the personhood agenda. In the coming months, we will share with you our fact sheets and other educational materials by email and on our website at www.rcrc.org. We also invit you to text RCRC to 30644 to stay connected and for the latest on reproductive justice issues that could affect you.

Working together, we can continue to shed light on this attack on women's lives and protect the values we treasure.

Personhood & Theocracy

Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey
President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Mississippi Initiative 26, the personhood amendment on the November 8th ballot in that state, is not only dangerous for women’s health and lives  – it is dangerous for our democracy. While not recognized as such, it is at the core of an openly theocratic agenda that is being pursued in all 50 states. However the vote goes in Mississippi, we need to be talking about the effect of personhood bills and referenda on constitutional issues.

We know the harm that Initiative 26 would do by basically ending access to reproductive health care in Mississippi – including banning all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the woman; some forms of contraception, and in vitro fertilization - and the frightening possibility that doctors would not be able to provide life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman, for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. We should also be aware that this amendment would enact in law a specific religious view about personhood that is in conflict with views held by most religious denominations and many people of faith. That would be a clear intrusion by government into decisions of conscience. It would take away the ability of a pregnant woman to make her own decision about a medical emergency or a problem pregnancy and instead put that decision in the hands of the government.

I call this campaign “theocratic” as a Baptist minister who holds all human life to be sacred. Issues around human reproduction are not as simple as the personhood proponents believe. In my view, we have a solemn responsibility to find balance in the complex area of moral decision-making around reproductive choices. Regarding abortion, I respect the value of potential human life while remaining firmly committed to women’s right to act according to their conscience in a decision about a pregnancy. The personhood agenda raises troubling issues about a woman’s moral agency. Because it would give legal rights to a fetus independent of the pregnant woman, it would set up a conflict that could place the health, life and dignity of the woman on a lower level.
It is no secret that personal religious views are motivating the personhood agenda.

The group organizing the Mississippi initiative, Personhood USA, defines itself on its website as a Christian ministry that “desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life.” The executive director of Yes on 26, Brad Prewitt, has described the conceptual origin of personhood as being “the Bible, Genesis.” He also says that “Personhood is bigger than just shutting abortion clinics; it’s an opportunity for people to say that we’re made in the image of God.”

The Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which rejects the accepted medical definition of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg, says the amendment is based on “undeniable scientific and medical evidence as well as on clear recognition that God is the creator of life.” Mississippi's largest Christian denomination, the Mississippi Baptist Convention, is backing the personhood proposal through its lobbying arm, the Christian Action Commission. "The Lord expects us to value life, even as he does," the commission's executive director, Jimmy Porter, says in a video.  
I respect the right of personhood proponents to argue their case and use peaceful, legal means to reach their goal, even though it will be shown ultimately to be unconstitutional. I ask that they acknowledge and respect that there is a wide variety of teachings and beliefs about personhood among religious groups and there is no consensus on the question of “when life begins,” often even within a particular faith tradition. Most religions hold that the decision about contraception and abortion must be a woman’s.

Yet, in the fashion of those who are determined to embed their religious views in law, there is no acknowledgement that there are other, equally valid views. Because there are a variety of views on such a basic question as “the beginning of life,” the Constitution guarantees that decisions about contraception and abortion will be protected by law. And that is where the matter should rest. 

Published on Religion Dispatches November 1, 2011

Mississippi 'Personhood' Initiative Raises Troubling Moral Questions

October 25, 2011

People throughout the country are taking action to defeat Mississippi Initiative 26, the "personhood" initiative. If passed November 8, it will have far-reaching consequences not only for women and men in Mississippi but for individuals throughout the country. It could be the start of a larger "personhood" agenda. We already know that Nevada, Tennessee, and Florida will have a similar measure on their ballots in 2012.

By legally defining a human being from the moment of fertilization, MS 26 criminalizes abortion without exempting cases of rape, incest, or life of the pregnant woman. As it is written, MS 26 would also prohibit or limit access to vital reproductive health services including hormonal birth control, emergency contraception, fertility treatments and life-saving procedures for women suffering ectopic pregnancies. Personhood USA - the fringe group behind the initiative - moved their efforts to Mississippi after failing to amend the Colorado state constitution in both 2008 and 2010. Colorado voters overwhelmingly rejected the extreme measure, but Personhood USA anticipates favorable results from the conservative southern state.

RCRC is working with the coalition of physicians, infertility advocates and reproductive health organizations that has mobilized to challenge the measure and to spread the word about unforeseen consequences of the anti-choice movement’s overreach. Mississippians for Healthy Families, the political committee formed in response to MS 26, says that the amendment “puts politics above the health and safety of women.”

The "personhood" initiative raises troubling moral issues, regardless of a person’s view of abortion. Whil religions across the spectrum respect and value life and many have an official pro-choice position, RCRC has identified these issues as of deep concern:

• The initiative is one-sided and narrow – it concentrates solely on the fetus and ignores the woman’s life entirely.
• Endowing a fetus with legal rights independent of the pregnant woman could set up a conflict that could place the health and dignity of the woman on a lower level.
• In order to ensure that a being is protected legally from the moment of conception, the state might have to administer a pregnancy test to every woman of childbearing age who was raped.

People of faith are also concerned that this initiative would enact into law specific religious views about "personhood" and in doing so, violate the foundational principle of religious freedom.

You can learn more about the bill at http://votenoon26.org/