.
November 8th, 2011
05:00 AM ET

Opinion: Why I support Mississippi's 'personhood' amendment

Editor’s Note: Dr. Freda Bush is an OB-GYN who practices in Jackson, Mississippi. She is a former presidential appointee to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS from 2006-2009, and a speaker and author on issues connected to sexuality.

On Tuesday, Mississippi voters can decide whether the state's constitution should define personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the function equivalent thereof." If approved, it would make it impossible to get an abortion, and hamper the ability to get some forms of birth control. Click here to read an argument in opposition of the amendment.

By Dr. Freda Bush, Special to CNN

(CNN) - As a Christian, a black American woman, mother, grandmother and OB-GYN, I know that every person is valuable and has a right to life.

I know I have become a better person because I sacrificed myself for my four children. Mothers take care of their children, teach and guide them until they can care for themselves. My mother, who had nine children, said, "A mother carries a child under her heart for nine months, then in her heart for the rest of her life."

Mississippi’s Amendment 26 recognizes a human being as a person from the beginning of their biological development to their natural end, regardless of the means by which they were procreated or method of reproduction, thereby giving the person legal protection. No one has the right to take the life of an innocent human being.

Mississippi governor supports amendment to declare fertilized egg a person

Many people say Amendment 26 is taking government too far. They forget that it was only 38 years ago, in 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had the “right to choose” abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. That is when government went too far.

I have worked in women’s health for more than 40 years. Every woman knows when she gets pregnant that she is pregnant with child and the child has his or her own body. Whether the pregnancy is planned or unplanned, wanted or unwanted, the initial response to the positive pregnancy test is a surprised inhalation, followed by a rush of emotions and questions: "Am I really pregnant? Do I want this NOW? What are my choices?"

The choice for women is to choose life, not death, for their child. Women can be assured pregnancy is not an incurable disease and is time limited.

Many have expressed fear about how Amendment 26 will affect in vitro fertilization because the process often creates more embryonic human beings than are implanted in the mother’s womb, and the excess are usually discarded. Amendment 26 would not ban IVF. However, it would require ethical standards to forbid the intentional mass production, genetic selection and harvesting of embryos for research.

IVF mothers ought to be fighting for Amendment 26. They know the yearning in their hearts to fill the void that can only be filled by a child. They go through tests and spend thousands of dollars to have an egg and sperm unite. One unique individual will begin to grow to the stage it can be instilled in her womb, where it will implant, continue growth and be born. The expectation is the "fertilized egg," yes, even the "potential person" will fulfill that potential and will one day soon be held in her arms and in her heart.

How can any woman not believe that every child deserves the opportunity to live? Life does not guarantee health and wealth, but comes with an innate and sacred value given by God that is not based upon our circumstances. I am a person who once lived in my mother’s body. Though born naked, poor and disenfranchised in the South, I’m glad my mother chose life for me.

Mississippi amendment on "personhood" divides Christians

Amendment 26 is good for humanity. It causes us to rise to another level where we value and treat each other as equals. It does not pit the woman against her child, but values both. It is not either-or, but both-and. Amendment 26 will not stop doctors from practicing good medicine. In cases of ectopic and high risk pregnancies, doctors would be expected to strive to save the mother and child.Mississippicode currently contains criminal and civil protection to physicians for causing the death of unborn persons in the course of saving the life of the mother.

Amendment 26 will not take away birth control, but it will end abortion as a birth control. The potential for pregnancy should be considered with each act of sex since procreation is one of the purposes of sex. Although recreation is a purpose, it cannot be disconnected from the procreative purpose. Unless contraception is used to cover each act of sex, then conception should be the expectation. Birth control prevents the sperm and the egg from coming together, which results in a single-celled person. Even Margaret Sanger, the mother of the birth control movement, said, “Any attempt to interfere with the development of the fertilized ovum is called an abortion.”

In the case of a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest, all victims will be defended. The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death. The woman is always affected emotionally and mentally by abortion. That is my experience, and the conclusion of many studies, one study most recently published in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Amendment 26 will save lives for the greater good of us all. I believe it will make us think before we act, make us as human beings more humane and begin to restore a culture of life in Mississippi.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Freda Bush.

Posted by
Filed under: What we think • Women
soundoff (836 Responses)
  1. quitsa

    So – has the time come to legislate male reproduction. How about required vasectomy at age 35, how about paternity testing for every child at birth and financial liends (or jail time) on their payroll for child support, how about no insurance support for erectile dysfunction drugs. When are these "Personhood' people going to contribute $$$ for every unwanted child and how many will they adopt?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • chip

      So your argument basically amounts to, if I believe nobody has a right to kill you (as an adult), I am somehow financially responsible for you? You make no sense.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Mr. Phil

    "Mississippi’s Amendment 26 recognizes a human being as a person from the beginning of their biological development to their natural end"

    Wait, the proposition bans the death penalty in Mississippi? Didn't think so.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Also, "biological development" is more than a bit vague. I produce millions of sperm a day; each one of those could potentially be a new life. Should we be legislating masterbation now, too?

      Then again, why stop there; I had to eat something to take in the nutrients to produce those sperm, so should the definition of development be broadened to include the hamburger I ate for lunch? I don't see why not, and I think you should all take it to heart. The next time you drive by a cow pasture, make sure to remember: those aren't just cows standing in that field; those are somebody's baby. So make sure to kill them and eat them so as not to throw off the cycle of development. Or don't. I'm really not sure at this point who's life we're supposed to be preserving anymore.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • chip

      So let me get this straight, you think that murderers have a right to life, but unborn children do not?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voiceofreason

        It's not a child; it's a bundle of cells, and cell for cell, there was more life in the bowel movement I flushed down the toilet this morning.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jernau

        In order to be consistent about ethics, I would have to conclude yes. Murderers are experiencing living beings, where as a fetus prior to 5 weeks, prior to the development of a nervous system is a collection of cells which cannot experience life. To show this I'll ask the following questions:

        Is a fetus a person?
        Is a human with severe brain damage in a permanent coma an a person?
        Is a murderer a person?

        Which of these functionally experiences life?

        Bonus question: Now look at that example, and ask does your dog experience more life than any of those?

        November 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Zwishenzug

    No one uses abortion as birth control. It's invasive, dangerous, and painful. People use contraceptives as birth control, and when that fails, a PERSON has the right to CHOOSE whether or not to abort an EMBRYO.

    By the way, is her name seriously Freda Bush? Sounds like she'd rather enslave than free da bush.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Dakota

    It is so clear that many do not know anatomy.

    1/ I know that men like to think that the minute their "cannon" goes off, an egg is fertilized; but nothing is further from the truth. It takes 3 – 5 days for the tadpoles to swim up the fallopian tubes and find an egg. But by then it may be too late for the tadpoles only are viable for a couple of days.

    2/ If fertilization takes place, it then takes 10 – 12 days for the ovum to make its trip to the uterus.

    3/ If the ovum makes it to the uterus, it attempts to implant itself into the uterine wall.

    4/ Only if the a fertilized ovum implants itself successfully.....about 14 days after the 1812 Overture.....does the medical community consider a woman pregnant with a zygote which may or may not be carried to term. Many, many women naturally abort (they just think that their period is late).

    Now, let me address what the bible says and does NOT say about abortion. I will compare the punishments laid out by the Bible for 1/ murder and 2/ causing a woman to lose a fetus.

    KJV
    1/ Exodus 21:12 reads

    Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee.

    2/ Exodus 21:22 reads:

    When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

    I hope that the reader can see the difference:

    For murder of a person, the punishment is death.
    For causing a miscarriage, the penalty is money because the fetus is NOT considered a person.

    Additionally, we have written records of abortion that predate Jesus by 1,500 years. Yet, God never spoke against abortion and Jesus, who certainly knew about abortion, never spoke against abortion. Either you believe in the divinity of the bible and Jesus or you don't. You can't have it both ways. As to women choosing: why should this burden be left on the slim shoulders of a 14 year old girl who is seduced by a man? Yep, you read that right. Most pregnant 14 year old girls are victims of male predators 19 years old and up. Check out the stats. Why are these predators not using protection?

    By the way: EGGS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM......S.P.E.R.M IS !!!!!!

    November 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • BriinNC

      Just don't pick and choose to add value to your ideas. The rest of what you didn't write.
      Exo 21:23 But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life,
      Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
      Exo 21:25 burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.

      God speaks about birth, that is the opposite of abortion.
      Psa 139:13 For You have possessed my inward parts; You wove me in the womb of my mother.
      Psa 139:14 I will thank You, for with awesome ways I am distinguished; Your works are marvelous, and my soul knows it very well.
      Psa 139:15 My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret; when I was woven in the depths of the earth.
      Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all my members were written the days they were formed, and not one was yet among them.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bryan Drake

      you may want to check your exegesis again on Exodus 21:22. The Hebrew word for miscarriage is not used, but rather natural birth is used. It attests that if nothing more is wrong with the child then there are no further charges.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm | Report abuse |
  5. mjluck

    coathangers don't kill people ,people kill people

    November 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
  6. will

    I am not religious but I do know that in the bible it clearly states that god gave us, the individuals, the right to choose. Mississippi wants to take that away. I don't understand why religious people aren't upset with this...

    November 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarineEngr

      You already had plenty of choices will; you chose to have sex, you chose not to use sufficient protection, you chose not to bring the baby to term choosing not to be a parent or give the baby up for adoption. The only choice you want is the least inconvenient path to spare yourself the burden of the child you chose to conceive by killing it. Stop lying to yourself that its a choice issue because it has nothing to do with freedom of choice.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • will

        If you want to know how god values a fetus compared to a live person, then read exodus 21,22-25. Live humans are entitled to an eye for an eye resolution but fetuses only have a cash value, not a life value.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarineEngr

      I am agnostic will. I really don't care what an old fantasy book has to say.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarineEngr

        No will your point was defending your right to choose

        November 9, 2011 at 9:09 am | Report abuse |
  7. Ness1

    I don't get it, people are concerned about overpopulation and then there's this. Just another policy to control women. Can the use of condoms also constitute as murder?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Faithless

    What happened when prohibition was introduced? That's right: bootlegging. If you outlaw abortions, abortions will be committed by outlaws. We can't just wipe everyone's memories of the fact that abortions exist, and people will get them one way or the other. I think having safe, legal abortions is way better than illegal ones performed in a person's basement, don't you?

    For every person like you who has a success story, there are 10 who don't. Their lives are filled with misery and suffering due to poverty, abuse, neglect, and in many cases crime. Would you bring a child into the world if the risk of these conditions were high?

    The Bible is not law. The Constitution is. Freedom of choice is a right and a privilege.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ness1

      Well said!

      November 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doug

      Amen!!!

      November 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Daria

      Thou shall not kill..is a commandment..and a law.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • will

        You cannot kill something that is not yet alive.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Daria

      one more thing...I find your argument that all the children who are aborted would have eventually led a life of poverty deeply flawed. There is no way you can make such a claim. We will never know what those children would have been able to accomplish. May I remind you, that Ghandi was born in poverty as was, Mozart,Vivaldi, Van Gogh, Abe Lincoln and Rosa Parks..etc..

      November 8, 2011 at 3:58 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Carlos

    yes please let's add no birth control to a state that has one of the worst records on health, longevity, education and overall quality of life... Glad I don't live in this state

    November 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  10. mjluck

    sure gotta typin happy mofo's in here today............

    November 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Ian

    George Carlin: "Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

    RIP sir...

    November 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Daria

      dead soldiers who fought so you would have the freedom to talk like an idiot.

      November 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • will

        The last time soldiers fought for our freedom was in WWII. Long before George Carlin made that comment. Since then they have been fighting to support our capitalist system and to spread it around the world, not for our freedom.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
  12. guest208

    Why do you bring God into this? Would God really approve of IVF? Doubtful. God would not agree with contraception. He expected you to have as many children as possible. God would not agree with anything you say so let's leave religion out of this. For women who get raped, why should their child be killed? He is as innocent as the victim. I really don't understand your logic there, it goes against everything you say. Let the law stand as it is. I don't agree with abortions, but it's not my choice. The current law gives any women their own choice.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • jeff

      How many foster kids do you have?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • gobydoc

      I agree completely. More to the point, would god or even any state in the current USA condone freezing a person? NO, that is murder. However, it is legal to freeze embryos. So, the measure in MS would put every fertility clinic in that state at risk and would then limit the availability of very useful infertility treatments involving frozen embryos... Ironically, the church has no problem with freezing embryos, it would just rather throw the unused embryos away than use them for stem cell research...

      November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Not All Docs Play Golf

    As a physician myself, I cannot understand how Dr. Bush can want the victim of a violent assault (rape is a crime of violence) to be forced to carry a preganancy that resulted from this. This quack doesn't have the brains or judgement to be a physician. I have known victims of rape, and it is devastating. She should be ashamed of herself for treating their situation with such callousness.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Edward

      Why should the child be murdered for the crime of the assailant? You, and every other medical professional who performs abortions, should be ashamed of yourself for murdering innocent children and making a profit from it.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • reb084

      you who are dead set against abortion, should go down to mexico city where they have a 20 million + population of poor citizens, i seen a lady setting on the sidewalk crying for her dead baby that died on the sidewalk , no food and no medical care, most of the people in this country that are against abortion are also against the goverment taking care of our poor through welfare and medicare , so if they had it thier way they would make these women have thier babys so they can watch them die in the street ?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Johnny Z

    I say this is a great amendment for Christians. They can call all of their fertilized eggs by name if they want, but stay the f out of everyone else's business.

    If voted in, this will be challenged by the Supreme Court, but in the meanwhile will recreate the back alley abortion business along with injuries and death. BC will now be contraband and sold on the street like Pot or crack.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  15. will

    I never understood how christians think life begins at conception. I'm not going to quote the bible but it does say that god breathed life into our nostrils. No one ever had breath in their nostrils until after birth. Prior to that our breathing apparatus is filled with liquid. So prior to god breathing life into our nostrils, what are we?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  16. Mark SB

    Not a person until about the middle of the second trimester. Ever ovulate or Masturbate? Are those eggs and sperm cells humans too? Murderer! Also, about 33% of women miscarry their first pregnancy. Is god murdering those "babies"? Maybe he's up to his old "smiting" ways again.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Luis Wu

    A fertilized ovum or even a few hundred cells, is NOT a person, it's just a collection of cells. Would you give the same "rights" to a piece of skin? Some blood cells? A kidney? How utterly stupid. Late term abortions are another matter, but in the first few weeks, it's just a collection of cells. A "potential" person? My skin cells have the same potential if they were cloned. Stop blindly accepting ancient mythology as fact a use some logic and reason for a change.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Luis Wu

      ChrkeePrde – A collection of undifferentiated cells is obviously not a person, any more than skin cells are. How can you even doubt that?? Oh, you believe in that silly book of ancient mythology and the invisible, supernatural man in the sky. Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Sc

    Abortion should be free. Human life is not a miracle. Not every life is valuable. Individual people are not all equal in any way shape or form. And life is not fair.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
  19. kurtinco

    Let's look at this another way. What if the government mandated that all illegal aliens must have an abortion. What if the government said that anyone who: is poor, has a low IQ, lives in an densely populated area, hasn't earned a degree, is unemployed, is over the age of 35, drives a yellow car, is a fan of the New England Patriots or the Steelers or the Raiders, ...what if they said it is undesirable, immoral even, to allow these people to procreate. It could even be said that God hates these people, too. There's got to be a verse in the Bible somewhere that tells us that Raider love is an abomination.

    My point: stop using religion to legislate what we can and cannot do. Zealots, remember Matthew 6:5-16 (especially 6:6).

    November 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • angryersmell

      I'm sure they've already got a verse picked out that justifies ignoring you.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Jessica Metaneira

    She's gone to the most ridiculous lengths to skirt around the fact that a fertilized egg is not a person.

    She's also avoided the fact that not even actual persons get to use anyone's body against their will.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • kurtinco

      Great point! If I'm not allowed to use your body for my own selfish purposes against your will, why should a bunch of cells stuck to your womb be able to?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
  21. jake

    Love how so many of the supporters are people who scream how "Big Brother" is encroaching on every aspect of their lives ("taxes are too high!" "Obamacare is leading to socialized medicine and death panels!", etc.), yet on so-called moral issues they want as much government interference as possible. If you're truly a Christian, you will let God sort it out himself. If you're truly a conservative, you will vote against this amendment

    November 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Luis Wu

      How can so many people be so stupid as to blindly accept ancient mythology as having anything at all to do with reality??? The only answer I can come up with is the brainwashing they receive practically from birth. But to someone who hasn't experienced that brainwashing and can look at it objectively, rationally and with logic, it's all just so utterly ridiculous.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
  22. willie

    Life begins when you leave Mississippi...

    November 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Blh77

      Agreed....please sign the petitions to stop this amendment on petitionsite.com and search Mississippi Amendment 26 or go go care2.com and do the same search. These signatures will make a difference when there are enough of them.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ian

      Absolute best post so far...

      November 8, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • state property

      Becoming state property begins in Mississippi. A person is a corporation as defined by the legal language.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Derek Crockett

      Classic! I'm stealing it!

      November 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
  23. DontMindtheFacts

    A classic example of why science and religion are bad "bedfellows," which is a particularly apposite pun given the issues involved I suppose. And, given her abysmal reasoning skills, I don't expect Freda Bush to grasp any humor contained herein, much less any arguments that appeal to the rationally-minded. And reader beware: because Bush has put me in a fundamentalist state of mind, out of MY fundamentalist principles I am gonna with-hold the title "Dr." I just find Bush's opinions too patently dumb, unreasoned and unprofessional to use the word doctor in any reference to her. However, if we can be broad-minded enough to agree to supplement her title with adding the word "witch" immediately before doctor, then I will be more flexible. Indeed, such a designation would be proper given the silly justifications in Bush's mandate, as they are the stuff of a bad fairy tale and have no basis in scientific fact.
    But dark humor aside, what is happening in Mississippi is truly no laughing matter: it's another attempt for the state to assert a property interest in women's biological material. Yet we still wonder why women feel "objectified." Given our collective knowledge in human anatomy, you would think by know we would know the proper proportions on the matter and know that a woman's womb is too small to accommodate anything as large as a state. Then again, under the State of Mississippi's proposed legislative rubric, that is a matter for them to decide, NOT the woman. Such is the whole point of contention!
    It's unbelievable that the author, who lacks a fundamental grasp on reason, somehow became certified to practice in the medical profession. Her opinions illustrate the dangerous situation that results from allowing one's preconceived PRIVATE beliefs pre-empt rational scientific inquiry. Her fidelity to a female patient's best interest is compromised by her private beliefs, which runs afoul of the whole hippocratic oath thing. She makes no pretense to being objective since the issue has been fully decided in her own small mind. Bush is why many many of us, when finding out someone is a person of "faith," go running and screaming in the other direction. The world view of religious zealots can just seem so warped! For example, in Bush's world, women MUST play host to single-celled organisms once they are formed, even if they were introduced into their body FORCIBLY. If genetic material is human in origin, it must be protected at all costs. This position resonates with a great deal of fundamentalist Christian narcissism, yet avoids considering the complex dynamics at play that can give rise to egg and sperm meeting (ya know, rape, incest and other unpleasant occurrences that often occur because of women's objectified status in life). The reasoning of this position is a lot like the "missionary position": lacking in originality, biblically proscribed and limiting in what one can truly see. Suggesting that single-celled organisms are persons is to ignore scientific qualitative and quantitative differences that are obvious to even the most unsophisticated observer, much less a "doctor." Real doctors, those committed to the scientific method, don't perpetuate myths, or in the common vernacular, lies.
    Being a "person" is much more than just a biological fact: it involves possessing basic sensory perception to experience life in any meaningful sense. Yet, in Freda Bush's calculus fully-formed female persons are not able to control what happens in their own bodies, robbing them of the VERY condition of what it means to be a person! What an incredible blind spot! I urge Freda Bush to go to an eye doctor and/or mental health professional at once, outside the state if necessary.
    So many people in this country are at a loss as to why so many times Mississippi is on the wrong side of history. They are at a loss as to why, even given the advances in knowledge, that fundamentalists in conservative states blindly assert positions that are demonstrably false. Mississippi, for the sake of your women, ignore fundamentalist views that ignore the basic tenants of logic and finally come into the age of enlightenment! When you do, you'll finally be welcome to the civilized world and be able to finally cast off your reputation for constantly being on the wrong side of history.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • kurtinco

      A little long, but entertaining and right on target.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • mjluck

      Next time don't hold back ,tell us how you feel in great detail....................................

      November 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
  24. Marie

    Abortion wasn't illegal for a woman to obtain it was illegal to preform before 1973....hence coat hanger abortiosn or butcher shops.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
  25. James

    This is your brain on inbreeding...

    November 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
  26. Renee Marie Jones

    Why does a starving child not have the right to food and medical care? Does a human blood cell have the same rights as a person? It's a human cell, just like the egg. Does a child have the right to vote? After all, a child is potentially an adult, so it should have the same rights, correct?

    You would spend millions to defend the "rights" of a single cell, but you won't spend a dime to save the starving children after they are born. That position is not "pro life." It is the most profoundly anti-life position I can imagine. It places ideology before real human suffering. It shows nothing but contempt and disrespect for life.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anders Jacobson

      Most intelligent post so far.

      Pro-lifers has little regards for life as it leaves the womb, they primarily wants to control peoples personal (sex)life.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voiceofreason

        Exactly. Of course, you'll never get them to admit it unless you're behind closed doors and are able to convince them that you're one of them.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
  27. Mark

    "The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Freda Bush."... and in my opinion, her opinion is worthless.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:06 pm | Report abuse |
  28. SurRy

    Mississippi. Love the fetus; hate the child. Highest rate of child poverty, highest rate of infant mortality, lowest median household income, highest teen birth rates, 60% graduation rate...

    November 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
  29. Anono

    Quick question: If the fetus is a person, and is doing bodily harm to the mother (whether through morning sickness or could potentially kill the woman through ectopic circumstances), could the child then, when full term, be brought up on charges of assault or even manslaughter if the mother die in child birth. I mean, if they are people than they are beholden to this countries laws right?

    November 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • BillieJo

      Interesting thought. Perhaps we should be charging infants who kill their mothers in childbirth of "involuntary manslaugher?" I'm being serious, by the way. The logic tied into all of these arguments for life is so tenuous at times. I'm not saying that I have all the answers but this Amendment 26 is bogus.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • BillieJo

        *with "involuntary manslaughter"

        November 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
  30. Mike

    Not allowing women to terminate pregnancy, even in the case of incest or rape, is equivalent to turning them into "baby factories." If this proposition passes, women who become pregnant through these forced situations now have no recourse, forcing them to continue to bear the results of decisions she did not make for herself. This is unconscionable.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      ... apologies for the poor grammar, by the way.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:06 pm | Report abuse |
  31. ktb515

    "Birth control prevents the sperm and the egg from coming together, which results in a single-celled person."
    A horribly WRONG overarching assumption from someone in a medical field. Hormonal birth control (i.e. the pill) does NOT prevent an egg and sperm from coming together. Rather it prevents a blastula stage embryo (that's a multi-celled zygote mind you) from implanting in the uterine wall, thus preventing pregnancy. Under Amendment 26, hormonal birth control, the most widely used form of female birth control available would be 'illegal.' Vote "no" if you like the pill!

    November 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • jj

      The pill prevents ovulation

      November 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • ktb515

        Actually Jill, it attempts to do both. It's a two part process. In the event ovulation occurs (birth control's not perfect) and an egg does get through, the hormones prevent implantation. Also, IUD birth control specifically and ONLY prevents implantation, thus rendering it illegal as well.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • ktb515

        While I have ample knowledge of biology, I apparently am dyslexic, 'jj' not 'Jill'

        November 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
  32. VK

    The legal implications of such an amendment acknowledging human beings to be in existence at the time the egg is fertilized cannot be fully comprehended. For instance, if a human being is considered in existence at the time of fertilization, it is a human that is functionally incapable of caring for itself. Then, arguably under that amendment, the human would have the right and need to be protected by the law/government like any other disabled person, which means that the mother's rights could be terminated and a guardian could theoretically be appointed to represent the human's interest. And if that guardian decided that something that the mother might decide to do that would not be in the "human's" best interest, that decision of the mother's could be challenged or blocked. For instance, what if during the gestation period the mother decided to embark on a career, that some crazy religious nut thought would not ultimately be in the "human's" best interest when the "human" is growing up. Then someone could petition the court to terminate the mother's rights and be appointed a guardian over the "human" to protect its future interests, be they financial or personal, and block the mother's intended plans.

    Just thought of something else that the right wing hasn't probably thought of...What about someone petitioning the court to block women from smoking or drinking during gestation and take away their parental rights on the grounds that they are harming the "human." A guardian would be appointed that would monitor the mother's personal actions and speak on behalf of the "human." I bet the right wing hasn't thought that one through...The right wing doesn't like people, and certainly not big government, messing with their right to drink or smoke themselves into oblivion...

    November 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
  33. Todd Not In DC

    A quick search and review of Wikipedia citations reveals this statement by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists:
    "A meta-analysis of 22 studies published today in BJPsych shows that women who have had an abortion are at an increased risk of mental health problems.

    Three previously published systematic reviews and the RCOG guideline development group (who reviewed all available literature up to February 2011) have concluded that women who have an abortion are not at increased risk of mental health problems when compared with women who continue an unintended pregnancy and have a baby.

    One of this paper’s findings points to increased substance misuse and suicidal behaviours among the groups of women. What this research does not fully examine is if these women had pre-existing mental health complications such as dependency issues and mood disorders before the abortion."

    http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-bjpsych-paper-mental-health-risks-and-a

    I'm assuming this is referring to the study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry that Dr. (I use that term loosely) Bush references (without citation). It appears that no conclusion can be drawn from this study, yet anti-choice advocates have accepted it as fact. Correlation != causation. My guess, and it is only that, is that any perceived increase in risk of mental health issues stems from the fact that women are chastised and lambasted for their choice, and are shamed by those that perpetually attempt (e.g. this ridiculous amendment) to force their dogmatic worldviews on everyone else.

    November 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
  34. biggal195

    It's Mississippi. Need I say more? Why do I sometimes get the feeling Honest Abe and the Union army made a big mistake?

    November 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
  35. TheCruxDefender

    Congratulations Dr. Bush, this is probably one of the least persuasive arguments I have ever read.

    As has been well established with empirical records, one of the unintended consequences of Roe v. Wade was a relatively dramatic drop in violent crime rates across the board approximately seventeen years after the decision. States with the least restrictive access to abortions saw the greatest drop in crime. In fact, access to abortion incurs the greatest drop in crime rates of any crime control device employed by government; including the current draconian incarceration rates.

    I wonder if Dr. Bush and her ilk intend to write letters of apology to all of the families and individuals who will suffer the consequences of violent crime if their anti-abortion crusade succeeds?

    November 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • ThomasM

      a freshman ethics class in college will cover this issue, it's ironic that Dr. Bush made it all the way through med school yet still lacks the critical thinking skills of a college freshman, isn't it? there wasn't just ONE study that showed the chronological correlation to Roe V Wade and a marked decrease in violent crime 18-20 years later, but a second study showed similar results within just a couple years of completion or the initial study. Correlation may not equal causation, but that doesn't mean we should be blind to what we can plainly observe, right? /nod /nod making the pill illegal and taking away abortion rights would have disastrous consequences for a society already teetering on the brink of intellectual poverty.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
  36. Bystander

    Has anyone considered all the logical outcomes of this proposed law? Probably not.

    Consider if it passes that places some interesting legal responsibilities on the father – whose parentage can be proven by DNA tests, possibly from conception through birth and beyond. So be it.

    Would men be more likely to seek alternative ways of having fun, such as with other men?

    November 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Here's an even better one. A pregnant women commits a felony. How do you put her in jail without putting the "person" who is her unborn child in jail illegally.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shinga

      Bystander – are you saying that if women are not able to get abortions that men will turn to homosexuality?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • ThomasM

        It seems like that's what he is implying, but its foolish if that's the case, I can foresee a marked increase in oral/anal HPV infections among heterosexuals though. I can't imagine ANYONE "suddenly" transforming into a homosexual just because they're too worried about conceiving a child unintentionally! Sounds like it would make for a great comedy script though! It's as if the poster forgot that condoms and diaphragms still exist...

        November 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
  37. B

    If this bill passes, does that mean that we need to make it illegal for a pregnant woman to use tobacco products, drink caffeine, eat foods high in fat/sodium, watch tv, drive an automobile, fly on an airplane, work 40+ hours a week because the unborn person cannot defend itself from the potential damaging effects? And who will enforce these rules? I thought conservatives wanted big government to stay out of their lives?

    November 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • crisco31@usa.com

      Just who is your controler now? more of the same, Ron Paul would give you back the power through the state. It would not matter what Ron Paul wanted like this the states would decide.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • A

      Your position is ridiculous. Take a look again at your argument. It is based on the premise that the unborn child belongs to the mother. In each example (drinking, smoking, etc.), you are talking about someone doing something to their own body...Guess what, a child does not "belong" to the parent. Using your argument, parents should be allowed to let their kids smoke, buy alcohol for them, give them illegal drugs, right. I mean, according to you, the children belong to the parents, so why does the government need stop individuals from harming their own?!?

      Good logic!!!

      November 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • B

        How does a child not 'belong' to it's parent? A parent is responsible for their child until he/she turns 18, so how does your argument make any sense either? You're basically saying that the mother is NOT responsible for the unborn child? Who is then?

        November 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jeens

        B is right in that it opens the door to outlaw pregnant, or even possibly pregnant women for that matter since person-hood would happen at the imperceptible moment of conception, from consuming alcohol. Alcohol is the most obvious example because there are well established studies to its effects of fetal development. Women shouldn't drink while pregnant but they currently can't be thrown in jail for doing so. Maybe you argue they should, but it would also open the door to a whole mess of other activities being banned like jogging or working 40+ hours a week since they too have an arguably adverse effect on fetal development. Dismissing the activities as something they do to their own body is ridiculous because it's not possible for a woman to will what may and may not be passed on to her developing fetus. Whatever happens to her body whether by her own actions or that of another has an effect on this "person" they wish to establish, and if it subjectively led to the death of the little person then the mother could feasibly be investigated.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
  38. NGN

    "In the case of a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest, all victims will be defended." Want to give some details?

    "The woman is *ALWAYS* affected emotionally and mentally by abortion. That is my experience, and the conclusion of many studies, one study most recently published in the British Journal of Psychiatry." ALWAYS? There is no such thing in this context. There are exceptions.

    "Although recreation is a purpose [for sex], it cannot be disconnected from the procreative purpose." Ugh! Here we go again! More sermons!

    "Life does not guarantee health and wealth, but comes with an innate and sacred value given by God that is not based upon our circumstances." Even Mississippi has atheists.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • BankerLady

      "Ugh! Here we go again! More sermons!"

      It's not a sermon to remind people that sometimes sex results in babies. No matter how much people seem to want to pretend that it's solely for recreation. It's not. Regardless of your personal beliefs.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
  39. MthNrd

    So the proposition would take away the woman's right to choose to give birth. This is the same as the government forcing the woman to give birth. The only way to ensure the law is not violated (and the unborn life 'protected') is for every positive pregnancy test to be reported to an Unborn Person Protetction Agency so the development of the fetus could be tracked and monitored by the government.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • MthNrd

      Additionally, any miscarriage would be a potential homicide and would need to be criminally investigated.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Katie K

    When I was in my late twenties, I explored the possibility of having my tubes tied. I knew then that I didn't want children. Guess what? My doctor explained that IT WAS NOT MY DECISION! I would have to go before a "board" of doctors who would decide if I could have the procedure. This was not in some backwoods town – this was in Los Angeles in the 1980's! My goal was to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately, I became pregnant a few years later and terminated the pregnancy. I have no regrets, and have not been "emotionally" or "mentally" harmed by my decision. It was the right decision for me and I'm glad I was allowed to make it for myself.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ted

      Terminated the pregnancy is such an antiseptic way to put it and clearly demonstrates your inability to confront your own actions. I would be satisfied that you have no issues with your deed if you wrote "...and I aborted my baby" or something to that effect. The active voice in the first person would do.

      For better or worse, this vote has at least given us pause to consider the realities of both sides of this argument without watering down the realities to assuage our own guilt.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • RandomOne

        @Ted – what does it matter if she used "terminated" instead of "aborted" – either way the fetus is gone. Or should I say "dead" instead of "gone?" She was an adult and knew what was best for her – why should that concern you? Oh sorry, were you volunteering to adopt her baby? Nah, didn't think so. People should mind their own business and only try to force their beliefs on their own children.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Apa

        A fetus is not a baby. It's a fetus.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Katie K

    When I was in my late twenties, I explored the possibility of having my tubes tied. I knew then that I didn't want children. Guess what? My doctor explained that IT WAS NOT MY DECISION

    November 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Katie K

      sorry – the above comment "posted" before I was finished typing – as Emily Litella use to say, nevemind...

      November 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
  42. Momma D

    Idiot! For an extremely educated woman, her views on this ridiculous bill astound me. What do faith and the government have to do with my body? or any woman's body for that matter?

    November 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
  43. Aerin

    First Amendment of the Constitution is freedom of religion AND ALSO FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Educate Yourself

      Freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion. If you're going to quote the Constitution, at least do it correctly, as the interchange of those two words have drastic ramifications on the understanding of the amendment.

      November 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
  44. Aerin

    "As a Christian ..." I stopped reading right there. I am an atheist. Take your Christian beliefs and shove it.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Yep. If you want to believe in a thousands of years old stone-aged mythology founded by nomads and goat-herders, that's fine. If you also want to tell me that I also have to abide by your backwards and superstitious beliefs, that's not fine. See how that works?

      November 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  45. D Smith

    And, along with each birth, may I ask that you hand out copies of Michael Pearl's child-rearing book, To Train Up a Child, which teaches biblical methodology in child rearing so you can beat and abuse your precious child, until death if necessary.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Oh, does it also offer advice for the best way to offer up your daughter to be raped by a mob instead of allowing them to have the gay sex? Because I always loved that chapter.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
  46. BriinNC

    It's so easy for those who have rights to rule over those who don't.
    Think about this:
    Everyone who supported slavery was free.
    Everyone who supports abortion is born.
    That's how oppression works.
    We say, "what about rape victims?" Go read about Rebecca Kiessling and see about her life.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      And everyone who supports pest control is human.

      By your logic, roach spray should be illegal too. "Stop oppressing the roaches!"

      November 8, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • BriinNC

        @Adam
        So taking what you just said, A roach should have more rights than a child or someone bound by slavery?....oops don't want to take what you said out of content. maybe you should try the same.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      So by your logic, people that oppose abortion are...unborn? Is that at all like being undead?

      November 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
  47. saywho

    When will all the super righteous learn that morals cannot be legislated? Proper upbringing in the home to a set of individual and personal beliefs will work wonders. Certain prohibitions will always fail.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      Actually, all laws dictate morality. They're all based on, "This is a good thing, it should be protected/promoted" or "This is a bad thing. It should be prevented/eliminated."

      November 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
  48. Voiceofreason

    "The choice for women is to choose life, not death, for their child."

    That's not a choice; it's mandate. And it is one you have no right to force on anyone. So take your simple-minded stone aged beliefs somewhere else.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • independentlyowned

      "The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death. The woman is always affected emotionally and mentally by abortion."

      Guess this "doctor" doesn't realize that child birth causes more deaths than legal abortions. Or that bearing and raising a child can "emotionally and mentally" affect a woman, too. But thanks for speaking for every single woman and her individual experience of abortion and child birth.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • amy

      Study after study shows that the dominant emotion a woman experiences after an abortion is relief. There is NO such thing as "post-traumatic abortion syndrome"-that's just another lie from the American Taliban.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voiceofreason

        Well just look at her arguments: "That is my experience, and the conclusion of many studies, one study most recently published..."

        Many studies, huh? And one most recently published, you say? Anyone who has taken any sort of logic, debate or public speaking course should be able to immediately recognize those nebulous claims for what they are: insubstantial attempts to garner support for a position where no solid or conclusive arguments exist.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Blh77

      I agree completely witht his comment. Everyone else who agrees, please go the the Petition Site and Care2.com to sign the petitions to stop this amendment from progressing. How dare anyone try to make a choice for me and tell me how I should feel about it.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
  49. Adam

    I understand that this woman is pro-life. But she also clearly knows nothing about human biology, American law, or even the particular proposal that she is defending. I don't see why CNN would broadcast the views of such an ill-informed individual.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Adam

    This woman clearly knows nothing about human biology, American law, or even the particular proposal that she is defending.

    November 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
  51. slippery

    I wouldn't want you as my physician. NO WAY

    November 8, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
  52. nyniane

    Abortion "only" legal for past 38 years? How few people remember that it was perfectly legal up until the late 1800's! And that the outlawing of it at that time was not for the purpose of "protecting lives" but for putting the practice of medicine solely in the hands of (male) doctors – abortions were generally performed by (female) midwives.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Katie K

      And the good doctor states "The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death. The woman is always affected emotionally and mentally by abortion." While any surgical procedure is potentially risky, women were more likely to suffer injury or death at the hands of "back street" abortion "clinics" while it was illegal. To her other statement that women are "always" affected mentally by abortion let me say that this has NOT been my experience. I regret having become pregnant, but nearly 30 years later I do not regret ending that pregnancy. I do not look longingly at little children, I do not have nightmares – I know it was the right decision for me and I'm grateful there was a place I could go to have the procedure done safely.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • amy

        Women are far more likely to suffer injury from childbirth than a legal abortion.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm | Report abuse |
  53. IVFPatient

    I have been through 2 rounds of IVF and had 15 embryos created. Guess what I transferred two and no pregnancy, thawed our frozen 4...no transfer as they died before growing more. Second round 9 embryos, none made it to day 5, they slowed down in growth and never got to the stage needed to be viable. Meaning even if the doctor had put them back in me they wouldn't have implanted. This law could make it so I was murdering 15 people...yet they wouldn't have made it due to lack of DNA. Some people really need to look at the big picture. I am just trying to have a child...this route is cheaper for me than adoption. I feel blessed to be able to try, but I know I didn't lose children with each round, I lost what I hoped may have been children. No different from a couple that are trying to have a child without medical help. This doctor is a lowly OBGYN, they know very little about conception. Trust me...I know...I have been down that road. They know how to delivery babies and do yearly exams. This doctor is one of those doctors I walk out of the office and never return and proceed to tell my friends how horrible they really are.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
  54. Janeen

    1 Corinthians 6:19
    Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

    Romans 6:5
    For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,

    2 Corinthians 10:3-5
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

    November 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • amy

      Your fairy tale verses are completely irrelevant to American legal code. If you want to live in a theocracy ruled by interpretations of ancient fairy tales, move to Saudi Arabia.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • JDawg

        Your point is understood, but for clarification, Saudi Arabia is technically a monarchy. Their law and constitution are governed by Sharia law and Islamic Basic Law respectively.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Voiceofreason

      Quotes from a book of mythology do not constitute supporting arguments for a legal case. Try again.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • JDawg

        I am really struggling with this issue and religion in general! If you could explain to me all your proof of the Bible being just a fairy tale and God not existing it would really help me out.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • WLR

      baaaaa baaaaaa I hear a sheep

      November 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • gecul

      What is the connection between this drivel and the issue at hand?

      November 8, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
  55. Thea

    At what point will men be held accountable in this continual moving of the 'what is life?" goalposts? Is anyone proposing making male masterbation, or even nocturnal emissions punishable by law? Are we gonna start checking sheets and bedroom trash cans for evidence? The guys who want these regulations should have some actual skin in the game

    November 8, 2011 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • RichieP

      Just when I think I could no longer be surprised by people's stupidity, someone like you comes along.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voiceofreason

        Is that not a logical extension of this current bill? After all, it is already a held belief by the Catholic faith. But of course, I'm sure whatever form of belief you subscribe to must be demonstrably superior to theirs, so why don't you tell us about it?

        November 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
  56. ChrisCintheD

    Dr. Freda Bush...you disgust me.

    That is all.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Giancarlo Taliente

      Ditto to you ChrisCinthed

      November 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
  57. belladonna

    So, Doc, are you going to call 911 every time one of your patients has a miscarriage, to arrest the woman on suspiscion of murder/manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary), have her booked, investigated, the "remains" autopsied to see if she did **anything** that may have caused the miscarriage? I can only thank the Goddess I'm past child-bearing – the Christian Taliban can no longer force me to risk my life/health/future of myself and/or any other children I may have to satisfy their insane desire to control all women's sexuality and make pregnancy a punishment for having had sex – voluntarily or otherwise.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
  58. amy

    How many children is this "doctor" going to adopt?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
  59. yukonmukon

    "Personhood" begins at the "moment" of fertilization, eh? How many "personhoods" are wrought by each process, I wonder? After all, a fertilized egg may very easily split into twins at some point, so do we deem these womb-mates as being "half-persons" each, or is this yet another "personhood" achievement moment? And about that notion of "moment".... I would have hoped an OB-GYN would know that conception happens in nothing like we would call a moment. From the time a sperm enters the ovum, it can take between 24 and 48 hours for the replication process to initiate.

    I want to be clear: I am by no means someone who thinks abortion is a good thing, I am fully cognizant of the ethical problems it entails, and I feel we should take measures (short of legislating what a woman can do with her own body) to reduce their occurrence and foster sexual responsibility. But breakthroughs in this arena will only happen with informed and reasoned research and debate. Searching for an answer in faith-based and intuition-based thinking will only cloud the issue rather than bring clarity. Why is it that faith, which is constantly trumpeted as the necessary foundation to true ethical behavior, only serves to create ethical confusion when it gets involved in such matters? I should hope, here in the 21st century, that anyone who seriously believes a sphere of a few dozen undifferentiated cells is of equal moral concern as an actual child or adult would be marginalized in any serious public discourse.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • bobmma

      Wow, that was really well put together.

      November 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • ThomasM

      excellent post; thoughtful, reasonable, and even politically correct (unless you're a far-right-wingnut). someone "bump" this to the top of the pile. 🙂

      November 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
  60. JusDav

    So, when a woman has a miscarrage, will they be charged with murder? will there be an investigation to see if she ...A: ate the wrong foods, thereby causing the termination? B: led too stressful of life C: did not take proper care of herself? D: test her to make sure she did not ingest some drug or other purposeful means of terminating? I believe if the law passes those are good questions and need to be addressed.... at the cost of big bucks to the tax payers, which we really do not need right now.

    Please excuse spelling errors as I am not a linguist. nor am I an English teacher, nor do I care if I mistype a word or two... if you get my meaning, lay off the mis-spelled words please

    have a spectacular day today
    JusDav

    November 8, 2011 at 1:30 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Frank

    I guess we don't need to ask Dr. Bush how she feels about embryonic stem cell research.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
  62. fluorophore

    It's confusing and highly disappointing that a women's health care professional would hold these views. Making basic health care like birth control less accessible is the mark of a suppressed society, not a progressive or enlightened one. When will we stop trying to legislate controls over how women obtain health care in this country? It's appalling that in 2011 we're seeing this kind oppression.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • RichieP

      You're confused because you have never even attempted to make an intelligent case to explain how a developing baby on the inside of the birth canal is not a person, while a still-developing baby on the outside of the birth canal is. You don't want to believe the truth so you hide your head in the sand and act all confused once somebody confronts you with it.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • IVFPatient

        In this law...If an ectopic pregnancy occurs...no abortion is allowed. Which is really what it is. But it is not something any women wants to go through. And what if she dies? Which will occur often. Are there other children that depend on her? These 'people' are not really people yet. I know of many that had embryos implant for a couple days only to miscarry days later. Do you know the real science of reproduction? I do, I have been there, I wish I didn't have to, but I do. 50% of all created embryos are not viable to become a human beings. I have never destroyed an embryo...but I have created at least 15 in the lab...non were viable. Research reproduction, then you should be able to vote. This OBGYN knows very little about reproduction...which is very common.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • JK

        Oh, sorry, it's so obvious to most people, we didn't realize you needed to hear the explanation. A fetus becomes a person when it's capable of living outside the womb. The law already recognizes this and restricts late-term abortion rights accordingly. The idea that fertilized cells are people is absurd because they don't meet any legal definition of "life" such as breathing, brain function, heartbeat. By that logic, there are no dead people, so everyone who's buried a loved one is now a murderer.

        Logic and critical thinking: they really help in the quest to understand stuff!

        November 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
  63. Domini

    What does, "in the case of rape or incest, all victims will be defended" mean? Does she think those are exemptions ( the policy page for Mend 26 says no?) What does this sentence mean?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
  64. Mary

    What about ectopic pregnancies?

    These "persons" are implanted in the fallopian tube, growing and developing. Until they rupture the tube and the host female bleeds to death.

    If an ectopic pregnancy is discovered, since this amendment allows NO exceptions, and this "person" is going to kill another person, what happens? Whose right to life prevails?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
  65. saopaco

    "IVF mothers ought to be fighting for Amendment 26. They know the yearning in their hearts to fill the void that can only be filled by a child."
    Wow – keep your gender identity roles to yourself. Not everyone is you.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Does 26 allow IVF at all? Since it necessarily means that some lives will be lost. That would imply that it is OK to allow a child to die if it was created by choice, even knowing there is a good probability of death. So only in utero accidents are protected. Of course IVF will now needlessly become even more difficult and expensive.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  66. StevensB

    So , when that egg is fertilized will the parent(s) be bound by law to immediately register the " person " and get a social security # ? Will they have to notify the IRS ? Will they immediately be able to claim the " person " as a child deduction for tax purposes ?Will the government ( local,state,federal) immediately recognize the " personhood " ?????? This sounds to me like a new , massive government agency in the making . Will child welfare departments immediately become involved to make sure that the health and behavior of the new parents does not endanger this new " person " ????

    November 8, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      If not, why not? If this life is equal to all others then there is no excuse to treat it any less than another born child.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • p

      Before having procreative activities couples will be required to obtain provisional personhood papers from their local sheriff. If a child does not result from the procreative act summary investigations will be enacted to assure that no egg was fertilized, if an egg is determined to have been fertilized it will be determined if failure to give birth will result in a manslaughter or murder charge.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  67. Paul

    It's going to be awkward when Mississippi is forced to start issuing warrants for God's arrest due to all of the abortions (a.k.a. miscarriages) He performs.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
  68. Sandy

    Most forms of birth control will be outlawed.

    Except condoms.

    How many of you pro-lifers want to wear one? Most men don't.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm | Report abuse |
  69. guest

    Even ignoring the FACT that iud's and the ru486 pill would be targeted by this bill, this woman has reneged on her hippocratic oath by saying that a woman should carry the her rapist's implantation to term. To value a man's sperm over a woman's health makes me wonder if this woman has any compassion at all, despite being a self-declared christian. god-damn bitch would burn in hell, if it even existed.

    November 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
  70. interested

    Could women be charged with involuntary manslaughter if they have a miscarriage?

    November 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Depends on whether they engaged in a behavior that risked the pregnancy. Even if unknowingly, it could still be unintentional manslaughter. Of course the state would need to prove it. But since this would now be an equal person there is no excuse for the state not to investigate every miscarriage.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        If you were drunk driving and had an accident, negligent homicide.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  71. Michael

    If I'm in a burning building and in one room is a 1 week old baby and in another is a storage container holding 1,000 embryos, I'm probably going to risk my life to save the human being. I wouldn't for the embryos.

    That's my crazy values system at work, maybe yours is different.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Very good point. I suppose the "Christians" would let the baby burn to save the zygotes. At least they should if they truly believe their own BS.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • ficklemookie

        No. As a crazy Christian I can tell you that the instict would be to save the baby but would mourn the fact that I couldn't save the 1,000 lives in the other room.
        I find it funny how we can all listen to Horton when he says "A person's a person no matter how small" and then scoff at the idea that a person is only a person if they're big enough to exist outside of the bigger person carrying them.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarkinFL

        So what impulse would cause you to save the baby. The fact that you do not really believe they are equal? What other reason?

        November 8, 2011 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarkinFL

        Also, it is not a matter of size. To equate a "Who" with a zygote is insulting to all those in Whoville.
        Basically, stop being silly about a serious topic.
        Its about development. No brain, no person.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • J D

        ficklemookie: It's funny you should bring up that quote. Dr. Seuss was avidly pro-choice and was seriously annoyed at how anti-choice activists co-opted it.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
  72. relians

    dr. bush. resign...please

    November 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
  73. iminim

    Sorry about the typos, especially at the end of the first paragraph.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
  74. anon

    I am a rape survivor, and I chose to take the morning-after pill. I am so grateful that I had that choice, and I don't regret taking it for one second. I was able to finish college and I am now getting my MD. I am planning to devote my career to women's health and hopefully defending women's reproductive rights. This story and pending amendment make me sick, and Dr. Bush should be ashamed of herself for forcing her own personal beliefs on her patients. This is a completely inappropriate way to practice medicine.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Blh77

      Anon...thank you so much for making this statement. I too am a rape survivor, and the morning after pill was not available, and I lived in Mississippi at the time. I am so very thankful that I did not become pregnant as a result of this and thank God every day that I don't have a reminder walking this earth. I am appalled at the fact that MS legislature would rather focus on controlling others decisions and forcing their own beliefs on others, as opposed to focusing on their sky-rocketing teenage pregnancy and infant mortality rates. Unfortunately though, after living far too many years there, I can't say I'm surprised. They prefer to live in their own dilusional state of mind, rather than educate themselves. THIS is why I moved from this close-minded, ignorant state.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • anon

        I am so sorry to hear about your rape, and that the morning-after pill wasn't available to you. Having been there myself, I know it must have made an already terrible situation that much more stressful. Best of luck in the future!

        November 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
  75. J D

    As an OB-GYN, she should know that hormonal birth control uses two different mechanisms. One is to prevent ovulation, but the second is to prevent implantation in the event of breakthrough ovulation and fertilization. If a zygote is granted the legal rights of a fully realized person, preventeing implantation, and thus causing the zygote to die, would HAVE to be considered murder.

    And then there are IUDs, whose primary fuction is to prevent implantation. Should women who already have IUDs be forced to get them removed if this bill passes? And what about fatal genetic abnormalities in fetuses, or ectopic pregnancies?

    You cannot have two sets of equal rights in the same body.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
  76. FedUp

    She supports this because she is willing to make decisions based on "faith" instead of fact. An idea agreed upon with no emperical evidence. Even worse, an idea that is her version of the made of belief. There is nothing in her dogma that even speaks to this, other than a certain portion's take on it. No one condones chucking infants in a river after birth, but to call a fertilized cell is ludicrous.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
  77. Alex

    This proposal is a clear assault on women's health, how one can support this ammendment is beyond me. This is yet another example of chosing religion over the health of a living human being. The only supporters of this are Christian's who are blinded by their religion and ignore science and facts. I bet that a great deal of those who support this and call themselves Christian and claim to be 'pro-life,' ignore facts when presented with death penalty cases in your great state and execute and innocent person. You are all hypocrites and think for some reason place more interest in zygotes than living breathing humans. You claim to be 'pro-life' and won't support anything this President wants to do to alleviate poverty and close the gross income disparity in this country. Universal Health Care is 'socialist' to you, when if everyone in this country was afforded the basic right that should be health care then people would live longer and there would be far less preventable deaths. It is amazing how hypocritical you 'pro-lifers' are, it makes me sick. It's 2011, not 1800, its time to realize that.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • alsmeer1

      to all here who oppose pro-life. I just have a couple points to make..... even before I became a Christian, or as you would say 'religious'... I did not support abortion. so please dont make it all a religious argument.
      I believe that this is a life from conception. did you know that a fetus heart begins to beat in about 10 days after conception? it is a life. not a blob. not a cell of nothing. this is a growing human being.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Clay Colwell

        Um, 10 days after conception, it's barely an embryo, and certainly not a fetus. There's also no heart yet, let alone a heartbeat.
        Please do your research.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Alex

        Is this a serious comment, get your facts straight. 10 days really, a heartbeat..there's this thing called science that I'd suggest you look into before posting ignorant comments like this.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarkinFL

        Besides your complete ignorance of fetal development, a heart does not make some a person. There is only one organ that defines who you are and that is your brain. The rest is just life support for your brain. Without a brain with higher cognizant functioning you are nothing but meat without a purpose.
        You'll note how death is defined in the medical (read real) world. Its all about brain function. The days of equating a beating heart with "life" is long past. You aren't dead until your brain shuts down permanently and you are not "alive" as a person until it kicks into gear (and not just to make you breathe)

        November 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • ficklemookie

        In response to your nay-sayers.. They need to do THEIR homework. While the heart doesn't start beating after 10 days, it does after 3 weeks of conception. Most women don't even know they're pregnant until after this point. The average woman gets an abortion before 10 weeks.. Wihch means they're choosing to end a heartbeat... Ending a heartbeat is ending life. I have done my homework on this
        http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

        November 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
  78. tribecagal

    Dr. Bush all I have to say is I'm very glad I don't live in Mississippi and I'm even gladder you will never by my ob/gyn. To suggest that a zygote is a person is sheer lunacy. You have a decision to make. Do you want to practice medicine or fundamentalism? If it's medicine then you must put patients rights first and subjugate your religious views. If it's fundamentalism then please take down your shingle and get yourself a pulpit.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
  79. AmericanLife

    What a great article! And way to go Mississippi lawmakers and people like Dr. Bush who are standing up for human life.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Todd in DC

      No, she is standing up for zygote life. The human (mother) is just an incubator. She does not count anymore.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
  80. Michael

    "Amendment 26 is good for humanity. It causes us to rise to another level where we value and treat each other as equals. It does not pit the woman against her child, but values both"

    BullS***t. This simply values a Christian worldview. How does this value everyone equally? How does tying a mother into 18 years of care value her over the father that can simply bolt? How does society forcing a choice on a woman make her an equal? Also, what about the victims of rape? are we going to victimize them again by making them care for the rape child? We aren't treating each other as equals under this, this is yet another attempt by Christian Americans to institute control over the bodies of others. It is just another way to force women into being dependent.

    Lastly, as an Army vet I'm appalled we care more about pre-fetuses and zygotes and blastulas than the fully fledged humans we bomb all over the world. I suppose if maybe we label the babies proto-terrorists abortions would be ok.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Treating a zygote as equal to the mother is insane.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • ChristianPerson

      How does tying a mother into 18 years of care value her over the father that can simply bolt? - Christian values don't 'tie a mother', there are other options such as adoption. Christian values doesn't favor a father to 'simply bolt.'

      How does society forcing a choice on a woman make her an equal? - if a woman sees the child growing within her as a person who is resident for 9 months, that she has been asked to care for. She is asked to be responsible for another person for that period of time.

      Also, what about the victims of rape? are we going to victimize them again by making them care for the rape child? - again, why does the rape victim have to care for the child, rather than giving the child to someone to care for them? The bill would be asking them not to be responsible for a death.

      We aren't treating each other as equals under this, this is yet another attempt by Christian Americans to institute control over the bodies of others. It is just another way to force women into being dependent. - Please do not lump all 'Christian Americans' together and assume that they want to control bodies and women being dependent. The "Christian value" is I should care for all regardless of where I find them. I think your anger is directed at the "Christians" who do favor one over another, but that is absolutely not a "Christian value", it is someone taking the name of the Lord in vain.

      Lastly, as an Army vet I'm appalled we care more about pre-fetuses and zygotes and blastulas than the fully fledged humans we bomb all over the world. - what makes you think that is a Christian fault? Many, many Christians are actually pacifists and do not support bombing humans all over the world. In fact, many Christian organizations go to places in other countries where they try and minister to the very people you are sure "Christian Americans" don't care about.

      I don't know what I think about this bill. But I do wish that the comments that typically follow a reasoned article need not be full of hostility and at the same time somehow feeling superior to those you condemn. The Christian would be told to turn the other cheek. Many who use the word "Christian" are not.

      November 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
  81. just jenn

    it saddens me greatly that you allow your personal, religious belief cloud your professional judgement as a doctor and it saddens me even more that you serve an underpriveleged population, that when they are finished with you they feel guilty on top of everything else. as a doctor i hope you went to school and in that school i hope you were taught that the idea of an egg as a person is not just absurd but dangerous when applied as law. you talk about humanity but where is the humanity in allowing a biased government into a womans personal life. there are not any laws that adversely affect men the way this would adversely affect women, where is the humanity in that? you want to discuss why abortion is wrong, fine. but this isnt about abortion, this is about taking away womens right to certain birth control, throwing a woman in uncertainty when she gets pregnant or when she uses in vitro. your belief system prevents you from being an effective ob-gyn, your belief system does a disservice to women everywhere and to be honest i feel very sorry for your patients

    November 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
  82. Paul

    In my opnion male masturbation is murder.
    Cue Monty Python:
    "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good. If a sperm is wasted god gets quite irate."

    November 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
  83. erik

    in other news Mississippi MD Freda Bush argues for revoking all personal choices from the people of Mississippi in the name of christ. Freda adds the comment that she wold prefer to have all choices relating to her person finances and otherwise made by the government and the church. "it would be better for all of us if no personal choices had to be made by a individual" adds Freda. "next on the docket is the tax law, The bible provides great guidance on how to approach the subject" Not that it will matter as Freda has decided to forfeit her right to opinion on the matter as a way to lead by example.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
  84. MomofTwo

    I am angry that a PHYSICIAN would support this amendment. What about women who terminated a pregnancy due to fatal fetal anomalies? They'd be required to carry a child they knew would die? People only associate terminating a pregnancy with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies by young people. The FACT is, there are many married, successful women in this country daily that terminate a WANTED pregnancy because they child they are carrying will not live, but no one wants to talk about that. Instead, Mississippi wants to make the mother suffer through an unbearable 9 months of waiting only to give birth to a child who dies immediately. Amazing.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Report abuse |
  85. Derek Crockett

    "Amendment 26 will not take away birth control..."

    Shouldn't it? Is not the destruction of a sperm cell or an unfertilized egg also destroying human life?

    "Amendment 26 will save lives for the greater good of us all. I believe it will make us think before we act, make us as human beings more humane and begin to restore a culture of life in Mississippi."

    I beg to differ. Amendment 26 will not prevent abortions, it will only make them illegal. We've been there before, and it was anything but humane. Women who live in Mississippi and want to terminate their pregnancies will simply go to another state to do so. As an OB/GYN you surely know that conception is not the beginning of human life, but the potential beginning of human life. There are a myriad of naturally occurring conditions within a woman's body that can cause a zygote or an embryo to abort. Recognizing a zygote or embryo as a person is misguided, and just plain silly. Even primitive man knew better. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect that you know that this amendment is not about human life at all. It's about religion. Specifically the imposition of the Christian version of Sharia law on the rest of us.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • MomofTwo

      Agree completely Derek.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ngo

      Spot on Dereck

      November 8, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
  86. Ben

    What happens if the mother's life was in jeopardy? If this Amendment was passed, you could not save her live by aborting the fetus because it would be considered a person.

    November 8, 2011 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • MomofTwo

      Good Question Ben. Who's life takes precedence in that situation, mother or unborn child?

      November 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Todd in DC

        Why the child of course. Worman are garbage. They are merely waling life support systems for babies. Their rights come only after their embryos, or even the empryo's father.

        They shouldn't be able to read, drive, or be out in public without a man.

        The arabs have this right.

        November 8, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
  87. p

    An OB-GYN should know that implantation happens after fertilization and is not guaranteed to happen.

    An OB-GYN should know that not "every woman" knows she is pregnant, there's a whole tv series about that.

    An OB-GYN should know that sometimes the "cure" for a pregnancy is the death of the mother, not the birth of the baby.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
  88. skeptic

    This article may as well be titled– I Should Have My Medical License Revoked Because I can't Understand Simple Health Issues.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
  89. donna

    I do not believe the choice to have an abortion hurts any more than the pain of being raped. Both are heinous but in the end I think the choice belongs with the woman. No government no church no one should take that right away.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Of course it should be the woman's choice! Unless someone else can support the baby they have nothing to say in the matter. Even then, it is HER genetics involved as well.

      November 8, 2011 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
  90. us1776

    Mississippi would issue Conception Certificates.

    We would no longer have a Birth Certificate.

    Miscarriages would be involuntary manslaughter.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
  91. us1776

    If men could get pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament !!

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
  92. jordan

    Mississippi’s Amendment 26 is a direct attack on my beliefs.It is an attack on anyone who is not a hard-core Christian believer.It is unconstitutional and it is an assault on the famous supreme court Decision already done in government.
    Mississippi’s Amendment 26 is government going to far and it is not fair to millions of Americans.
    Abortion is a woman's choice.It is not the choice of others to decide.
    I am getting more and more angry at this government.Mississippi’s Amendment 26 is a waste of energy,money,and time.you would think that the Economy is a much bigger issue right now that needs to be dealt with.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
    • ladydi

      If its growing, its alive. To abort is murder. End of story.

      November 8, 2011 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
      • Sandy

        And, it can not live without the support of the person it is attached to – it can not survive on its own true? Therefore its the WOMANS choice as to whether it continue. Not yours.

        November 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Apa

        Cancer cells grow, too, you know.

        November 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Alive does not mean a person. It is not murder. We define death of a person based upon failure of the brain, no other organ. A person has a brain with higher functioning ability.

      November 8, 2011 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
    • Todd in DC

      Ok Lady, then you care for it. Funny, pro lifers seem to treasure life from conception to birth. After that, the baby is raw meat.

      I don't see anyone offering to pay for these unwanted children.

      And, funny, but ever notice how ALL pro lifers are heavily religous? (mostly christian)

      I thought a little boat called the Mayfllower had a bunch of people who came to America to escape religous persecution.

      Don't they even have schools in that redneck cesspool?

      November 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voiceofreason

        The Mayflower may have come here to escape persecution, but not in the way you are thinking. The boat was full of Puritans and the real reason they came was because England was sick of their shit and basicly kicked them out. They didn't come here to create a land of religious freedom; they came here to find a land where they could setup a Christian theocracy based solely around their own beliefs.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
  93. us1776

    GOP = FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
  94. us1776

    The christ-tards are going to kill us all with overpopulation !!

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Todd in DC

      No, they will set up camps to help prune society of intellectuals, liberals, and free thinkers. It's been done before.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Allison

      Why do you bother typing a post when you have nothing constructive to add? Solid political or religious opinion is not made of insults and useless commentary

      November 8, 2011 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ngo

        Didn't hear of Right to Freedom of Expression being repealed.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Katie K

      Have you heard – 45-year-old Michelle Duggard is cooking number twenty as we speak...

      November 8, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
  95. Concerned woman

    If a fertilized egg is a person, what will happen to a woman who has a miscarriage? Will she be charged with murder? Or will she be charged with "failing to provide the necessities of life", in other words, child abuse? Considering a fertilized egg as a person with legal rights is a very dangerous position with strange ramifications.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Not performing an autopsy on every miscarriage will imply that those "people" are less important. So either the amendment is immediately null and void or they have to start registering and tracking every pregnancy so that they can properly protect these "people". Every se.xually active woman will have to refrain from any activity that could harm a fetus even before she knows she is pregnant. The absurdities are endless. Truly.

      November 8, 2011 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
      • sush

        i like this statement.

        Some fertilized eggs are destroyed by body. Will I go to jail for that too?

        November 8, 2011 at 11:45 am | Report abuse |
      • MarkinFL

        Sush, without a thorough investigation how would anyone know if it was through natural causes or because of something you did? You would now be responsible for a person that can suddenly (literally in an instant) appear within your body without your knowledge. So if you are se.xually active you must be careful to maintain your body in a perfect child bearing state or risk a possible charge of manslaughter.

        November 8, 2011 at 11:49 am | Report abuse |
      • independentlyowned

        There already have been cases about companies not hiring women in certain higher paid positions because it involves exposure to chemicals that could cause fetal damage. Not that any of these women were pregnant at the time, or even intended on becoming pregnant, but we're still viewed solely as babymakers.

        November 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
  96. us1776

    The GOP wants all life to be born so that the GOP can promptly abandon that life.

    .

    November 8, 2011 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
  97. MeGusta

    This article must have been written by a brainwashed 16 year old christian girl. Your opinion is null and void.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
  98. MarkinFL

    "In the case of a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest, all victims will be defended. The choice of abortion hurts women. They risk injury physically and even death. The woman is always affected emotionally and mentally by abortion. That is my experience, and the conclusion of many studies, one study most recently published in the British Journal of Psychiatry."

    No she wants the government to become partners with the rapists to ensure their reproductive right to force any woman they can overpower to have a child with the rapist. THAT is psychological abuse of the highest order. I have less respect for anyone that would force a woman to have a child with a rapist than I do for the rapist. And I hold rapists as one of the lowest forms of human life. To force a woman to endure a lifetime tied to her rapist through her own child is cruel, sick and perverted.

    November 8, 2011 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
    • iminim

      Yes, I am sure there are women who regret having an abortion after rape. Likely it is all a part of the guilt many women are made to experience about the rape itself. "She should not have been dressed like that." "She should not have been out that late." Our culture can be bad about blaming the victim in rape cases, so why not extend that blame to having a abortion after rape? Likewise, there are always people who wish they had made different decisions about many things, marriage, for example. But we do not outlaw the choice of marriage simply because of the very high rate of divorce. Why take the option of having abortion form rape victims because so regret having one.

      I highly doubt that there have been any studies about the psychological impact of being forced to carry the child of rape to term, if only because modern human research ethics would not allow it. No doubt the psychology involved is as complex as that of the rape victim who chose abortion. A woman loses control over the security of her own body during rape. Personally, I cannot justify forcing her to lose control over her body for the next 9 months of her life, as well. She should have the right to make her own decision regarding what happens inside her body at that point. Keep in mind that if this amendment passes, post-rape pregnancy prevention measures that prevent implantation of the fertilized egg could be made illegal, so pregnancy resulting from rape could become a much more likely occurence, as well.

      And what of the rapist? He could be brought in to testify against the victim if she had an abortion. After all, he was the "father" of the pregnancy and could argue that she "mudered" his "child". Should the victim carry the pregnancy to term and the rapist get off on a technicality, he could sue for custody to get the child from either the victim or the adoptive parents.

      THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!!! You do not have to stop being pro-life to realize that this idea for a constitutioinal amendment in MS is not well thought out & may have far-reaching & unintended consequences. Anyone who doesn't think a lawyer trying to get his client off in a rape case won't use every tactic available, no matter how despicable better think again.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • bgrant

        No one is arguing about the horror of rape. But if we value life as being protected, then we shouldn't murder the innocent child. Reality is our culture and justice system needs drastic changes in the way it prosecutes rapists and protects women, but that is a different argument. We need to protect the life and improve society's role and support for rape victims.

        November 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      Very well stated. Thank you.

      November 8, 2011 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3