On Personhood

The Supreme Court believes that unions and corporations are “persons” entitled to First Amendment protection, freely to use their vast coffers to buy political advertising without significant limitations (Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission). Mississippi voters had an opportunity to define a “person” as a fertilized egg through the November 8^th election based on Initiative 26: “Should the term ‘person’ be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof?” While the measure was defeated, there is a growing movement to support this backhanded attack on the famous 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that has been the anathema of those who follow the pro- life school of thought.

With highly qualified support from Mississippi’s outgoing Republican Governor Hayley Barbour as well as both of the replacement nominees, Republican and Democratic, this vote is the tip of a growing conservative social movement to end abortions, and in the case of the Mississippi initiative had it passed, with absolutely no exceptions – including rape, incest and extreme deformity. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, once a pro-abortion supporter, believes there is indeed a place for a new constitutional definition of “person” that could include a fertilized human egg.

The consequences for such a definition – from opening up the HOV lanes to not-so-obviously pregnant women to the possibility of manslaughter trials for women who drink after or during intercourse (not mention conspiracy to the men who may have poured the drink) resulting in the death of fertilized eggs – are interesting if not a little disturbing. Additionally, such a statute, if enacted and upheld by the United States Supreme Court, “would likely have the effect of outlawing abortion and, if you believe opponents, all kinds of other unintended consequences, such as criminalizing abortion and possibly restricting birth control and in-vitro fertilization. It could even criminalize a pregnant cancer patient’s chemotherapy, if you believe opponents.” Washington Post, November 7^th. What makes this notion even more troubling is that more often than not, a fertilized human egg doesn’t even become a viable human embryo.

Reijo Pera is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the medical school and the director of the Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Education at Stanford's Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine tells us: “‘In mice, about 80 to 90 percent of embryos develop to the blastocyst stage. In humans, it's about 30 percent… In addition, about one in 100 mouse embryos are chromosomally abnormal, versus about seven out of 10 human embryos.…’… [A] blastocyst, which typically occurs within five to six days after fertilization. A blastocyst is usually an indication of a healthy embryo.” ScienceDaily.com, October 3, 2010.

Governor Barbour voted for the measure but admitted the choice wasn’t an easy one: “‘I struggled with it,’ Barbour acknowledged in an [AP] interview. ‘Some very strongly pro-life people have raised questions about the ambiguity and about the actual consequences – whether there are unforeseen, unintended consequences. And I’ll have to say that I have heard those concerns and they give me some pause.’” Washington Post. Well, this wasn’t the first such initiative to go before the voters – a similar ballot measure lost twice in Colorado in 2008 and 2010 – and it won’t be the last. This battle shows absolutely no signs of abating and represents just one more issue that continues to polarize this nation. What are your thoughts?

I’m Peter Dekom, and I admit I have big issues with people telling me and my family how to deal with our most personal moments.