Last Tuesday, the state of Mississippi stood up for women’s rights when it comes to pregnancy and birth control.
The state was voting on Amendment 26 to the State of Mississippi Constitution. The proposed Amendment read: “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”
In essence, a group of Mississippi citizens proposed that the state try to outlaw abortion as well as certain types of birth control. In order for the Amendment to be proposed, supporters had to collect and certify 89,285 signatures from registered voters in Mississippi. Since the group collected and certified over 106,000 signatures, the Amendment was put on the ballot.
The Amendment was defeated by a margin of 58 percent to 42 percent.
According to the Center for American Progress, had the Amendment passed, it would have outlawed: all abortions, regardless of the circumstances, most forms of birth control – including the pill and emergency contraception, many parts of common fertility treatments, stem cell research.
In addition, the Amendment would have made it so that all women who suffer from a miscarriage would be subject to criminal investigation – as a suspect.
Thankfully, the Amendment did not pass.
One of the main reasons I am against Amendment 26, or the “Personhood Amendment” is because of the issue of rape. Although most people don’t like to discuss rape, it’s much more prevalent in our society than it should be. If a man forces himself upon a woman and she gets pregnant, she should, under no circumstances, be forced to carry the child to term. In addition to the rape, being forced, as the proposed Amendment would have made it, to carry that child is a slap in the face.
According to the Center for Disease Control and the U.S . Census, the adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is about 4.7 percent, as of 2000. If that number is true and holds the same today, which is doubtful, that would mean that there are about 32,101 rape-related pregnancies, and thereby children in just one year.
Although some of these children are loved by the mother, that’s not the case for all of them. In my mind, the typical reaction of the mother to a rape-child is distaste. The fact that for the rest of her life, she has a living, breathing reminder to the rape she experienced. That’s not particularly a healthy way of coping with something as serious as rape.
Additionally, another point of the proposed Amendment that should be discussed is the idea of miscarriages. According to the American Pregnancy Association, between 10 and 25 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriages.
Just because a woman suffers from a miscarriage, doesn’t mean she should potentially face criminal charges. The reasons for a miscarriage are numerous. Something as simple as falling could potentially cause a miscarriage. A woman who falls should never have to face the possibility of going to court to decide if her falling was an accident or intentional with the desire to miscarry.
With the “Personhood Amendment” the supports and backers were not particularly clear when it came to what was intended by outlawing some common fertility treatments. Depending on what the “common” fertility treatments are, there would be a lot of wanted children not born. Although, the number of pregnancies that result from fertility treatments are not available, I know several people that underwent fertility treatments.
I am the result of numerous fertility treatments. Although I was born long before this became an issue, it still hurts to know that some couples who want children could be potentially banned from having children, should this become a law anywhere?
Should the “Personhood Amendment” ever become an issue in North Carolina or the United States, remember all the ways it would affect pregnancy. Couples who want children should have that option, and women who were raped should have the option to not keep the child.