Personhood Amendment in Mississippi Progresses
For those who do not know, the Personhood Movement is a movement to try to change the Constitution to define what a person is – and to include in that definition unborn persons. Personhood USA, who I linked to, is a religious based organization – but their goals are not religious in nature. Here’s a link an an excerpt from the article from LifeNews on Mississippi’s Personhood Amendment:
Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann has notified the backers of the personhood amendment in Mississippi that the state ballot measure received enough signatures. But whether it will ever succeed in its goal of banning abortions is another question.
The amendment is the fourth ballot initiative since 1992 to fulfill the requirement of 89,285 voter signatures.
“The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof,” it says.
Les Riley, sponsor of the personhood amendment, told LifeNews.com that it’s about all pro-life advocates can do to limit abortions in the state since the legislature has passed almost as many pro-life laws as possible to reduce them.
“The Legislature of the State of Mississippi has passed just about every restriction on abortion that can be passed,” he said. “Still, about 3,000 pre-born persons are murdered annually here.”
“We believe that the Mississippi Personhood Amendment will be voted into the Constitution, and defended,” Riley added.
On February 16, the sponsors submitted over 130,000 signatures, affirming the personhood rights of pre-born babies in Mississippi.
Paul Linton, a prominent pro-life attorney, tells LifeNews.com he doesn’t think the amendment will ever get before Mississippi voters.
“I would expect those who are opposed to the initiative to challenge it in court before it appears on the ballot,” he said of abortion advocates. “Whether they will wait until after the legislature has had an opportunity to review it (which is mandated under the Mississippi Constitution) remains to be seen.”
All well and good to get a technical win but unless they have the philosophical arguments to back it up you can expect it to be overturned at a later date.
You mean the legal/constitutional arguments?