Author: Sylvia Burley

Luckily for all citizens, Mississippi voters rejected the “Personhood” Amendment during yesterday’s Super Tuesday vote.

Formally known as Initiative 26, this amendment defines life as beginning at the moment of fertilization, and is being established as a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling. Filled with ambiguity, if the amendment had been approved by Mississippi voters, it would have made it impossible to get an abortion or even buy some forms of birth control…effectively criminalizing both.  Even women who miscarried would have been subject to criminal investigation.

One of the other effects it would have had is on the process of in-vitro fertilization or IVF.  During IVF, eggs are fertilized and then frozen for use at a later date.  Some people use the eggs for multiple implantations hoping that at least one (and hopefully not ALL) of the eggs will “take”, and the woman become pregnant. Some people however, after having one or more children, decide not to use the eggs and may either share them or destroy them.  The problem with all of this, according to the amendment, is because they deem that life begins at fertilization instead of conception, the actual freezing and potential destroying of the fertilized egg is then considered to cause  undue harm.

I believe it’s safe to say that if this amendment had only affected abortion (and possibly birth control) rights it might have passed.  Mostly young and poor women are affected by these two issues.  But once its impact on IVF became known, then it became a different story as it would now have an impact on more affluent women who can afford the IVF process.

Many who would probably have voted for this amendment if IVF was not affected, don’t seem to understand the hypocrisy that says it’s okay to tell a woman IF she should have a child, but not HOW to get pregnant or HOW MANY children to have. Really, how would people react if the Duggar family with the “19 Kids and Counting” reality show on TLC had been told, “you already have eight children which is more than twice the national average, so you can’t have any more.”? There would be a full scale uproar all over this country. But we have no  problem telling some women, again mostly poor, whether or not they must bear a child they may not even have the resources to take care of. Then, we turn around and disparage the women who do have children they can’t afford. You can’t have it both ways.

Although anti-abortionists claim to care about life (in other words children), they only seem to care about them BEFORE they are born.  After the children are here, full-fledged and in the flesh, they don’t care if their welfare is cut, if they have health insurance, if they have access to preschool or anything else that may cost taxpayers money.

Fortunately for all, this national campaign, brought by Personhood USA, a Colorado-based group that describes itself as a nonprofit Christian ministry, overstepped and its efforts thwarted.  But stay vigilant, because right-to-lifers are nothing if not persistent and they mean to have control over a woman’s body if it’s the last thing they do.

Make that, certain women.

Hip Hop Enquirer Magazine | Follow us @HipHopEnquirer