MERIDIAN — Have you seen those ads for Initiative 26? The ones where a little girl and a bunch of adults say to the camera, "I am a person." Or where the image of a developed fetus, with eyes, a nose, a mouth, and hands, bears the caption "Give me a chance. I am a person."

    These ads ask people to vote yes on Ballot Initiative 26, better known as the personhood amendment, but the ads really have nothing to do with the amendment. The amendment doesn't say, "All fetuses, babies, children, and adults shall be considered people," and it's not really about abortion.

    What the ads don't show is a picture of a human zygote at the first moment of fertilization with the caption, "I am a person." That image wouldn't be as cute, but it would be a much more accurate reflection of what the personhood amendment really means, because the amendment says that a human egg shall be considered a person as soon as it is fertilized, before a mother is even pregnant.

    A woman becomes pregnant when a fertilized egg implants itself on the uterine wall, about six days after fertilization — Initiative 26 would make the egg a person, legally speaking, before the mother is even pregnant, and long before the egg develops into a fetus.

    Because they threaten fertilized eggs, 26 could criminalize life-saving operations for women with ectopic pregnancies and other complications; the most effective forms of contraceptives, including intrauterine contraceptive devices, oral contraceptives, the contraceptive patch, and the contraceptive injection; and in-vitro fertilization for couples who, far from wanting an abortion, are desperately trying to conceive. It could also bring about death investigations when a woman has a miscarriage.

    The proposed amendment seems simple — it would redefine a person as beginning at the moment of fertilization. But when you think about all the times state law uses the word person, the amendment becomes anything but simple. Every one of those laws, under the personhood amendment, would apply to fertilized eggs. To change that, the state legislature would have to change the wording of each individual law that they don't want to apply to fertilized eggs. If the personhood movement's goal is just to outlaw abortion, they have a very roundabout way of going about it.

    By making a fertilized egg a person, the amendment would criminalize a lot more than just abortion, and even the way it outlaws abortion is extreme — It would make all abortions illegal with no exceptions whatsoever, even in cases where the mother's life is in danger or where the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.  

    The personhood movement was started by a man in Colorado and was rejected by Colorado voters on two separate occasions. On the Personhood Colorado Web site, the implications the amendment would have on birth control are proudly proclaimed. The movement views the use of the pill or IUD's as a really early form of abortion, saying that these contraceptives, "do not only prevent 'conception' but were also designed to kill the tiniest children by preventing implantation."

    By "tiniest children," they mean human eggs that have just been fertilized and have not become embryos yet.

    The personhood movement claims that the only morally acceptable contraceptives are those that do not threaten fertilized eggs. The forms of contraception suggested by the personhood movement — condoms, spermicide, and the calendar method — are all far less effective than the pill and IUDs. In some cases, as in the calendar method, they are not effective at all.  

    The initiative is backed by both of our state's major party gubernatorial candidates and by the Mississippi Baptist Convention. It is not backed, however, by doctors. The Mississippi Medical Association and the Mississippi chapter of the American Congress of Obstetrician Gynecologists have announced they are against the initiative because it could prevent doctors from performing life-saving operations on women. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, and RESOLVE — organizations that help couples overcome infertility — have also come out against the initiative because of the effects it could have on in-vitro fertilization.

    The personhood movement thinks it is their business to tell women, not only whether or not they can have an abortion, but what forms of contraception they can use, how they can address infertility, what to do when a pregnancy threatens their life, and whether a miscarriage is their fault.

    The initiative is not about abortion; it's about controlling women by taking away a woman's choice, not just as to whether to terminate a pregnancy, but whether to get pregnant in the first place. Mississippi voters need to show the men behind this Colorado movement that we won't let them push their extreme agenda on our state. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, vote no on Initiative 26 this November 8.



    Email Jennifer Jacob Brown at jbrown@themeridianstar.com.