OK I may hate myself for speaking out of frustration later but I've just gotta say it. What's so wrong with Amendment 26?
It is not about abortion, it is just giving an unborn child protection under law. The child will have equal rights with their mothers, not greater or more rights.
The law will still allow doctors to save the life of a mother in the instance of a dangerous pregnancy.
Most forms of birth control will still be available. Only those which prevent "implantation" may be affected such as IUDs. However, less than 5% of Mississippians using birth control use this method.
The only possible adverse effect of the initiative may be access to Invitro Fertilization (IVF). And in this scenario, it would only apply to unused fertilized eggs, which may never exist.
I pulled the following from the MS Center for Public Policy statement concerning the legal effects of the initiative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One question that stands out is whether the amendment would subject medical professionals to prosecution for performing life-saving procedures, such as treating a woman for cancer or terminating an ectopic pregnancy.
Mississippi law protects medical professionals from criminal liability for the accidental homicide of an unborn person. Under the Personhood Amendment, there will continue to be no criminal liability for medical professionals who prescribe a medication fatal to an unborn baby to treat a female patient whose pregnancy was unknown and was not reasonably discoverable.
IVF assists in reproducing a human life. By contrast, abortion necessarily involves killing a human life. IVF procedures can be performed without destroying human embryos, and therefore would still be permissible under Initiative 26. As is currently being done in many cases, any excess embryos not implanted in the womb could be frozen and implanted later or adopted out to other parents.
If an unborn child’s death is accidental or necessary to save his mother’s life, there is no justifiable legal or ethical ground for prosecuting a physician who terminates an ectopic pregnancy or who prescribes medication injurious to an unborn child – either under current law, or under a state constitution that recognizes the basic fact that life begins at fertilization.
The rights of the preborn, as affirmed by the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, will not take precedence over those of the mother... it is written to protect every human being, both born and unborn, it will simply validate the equal and inalienable rights of all people.
It is not about abortion, it is just giving an unborn child protection under law. The child will have equal rights with their mothers, not greater or more rights.
The law will still allow doctors to save the life of a mother in the instance of a dangerous pregnancy.
Most forms of birth control will still be available. Only those which prevent "implantation" may be affected such as IUDs. However, less than 5% of Mississippians using birth control use this method.
The only possible adverse effect of the initiative may be access to Invitro Fertilization (IVF). And in this scenario, it would only apply to unused fertilized eggs, which may never exist.
I pulled the following from the MS Center for Public Policy statement concerning the legal effects of the initiative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One question that stands out is whether the amendment would subject medical professionals to prosecution for performing life-saving procedures, such as treating a woman for cancer or terminating an ectopic pregnancy.
Mississippi law protects medical professionals from criminal liability for the accidental homicide of an unborn person. Under the Personhood Amendment, there will continue to be no criminal liability for medical professionals who prescribe a medication fatal to an unborn baby to treat a female patient whose pregnancy was unknown and was not reasonably discoverable.
IVF assists in reproducing a human life. By contrast, abortion necessarily involves killing a human life. IVF procedures can be performed without destroying human embryos, and therefore would still be permissible under Initiative 26. As is currently being done in many cases, any excess embryos not implanted in the womb could be frozen and implanted later or adopted out to other parents.
If an unborn child’s death is accidental or necessary to save his mother’s life, there is no justifiable legal or ethical ground for prosecuting a physician who terminates an ectopic pregnancy or who prescribes medication injurious to an unborn child – either under current law, or under a state constitution that recognizes the basic fact that life begins at fertilization.
The rights of the preborn, as affirmed by the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, will not take precedence over those of the mother... it is written to protect every human being, both born and unborn, it will simply validate the equal and inalienable rights of all people.
No comments:
Post a Comment