Skip to main content

In a decisive and resounding victory in one of the most conservative states in the country, Mississippi voters defeated--by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent as of this writing--the dangerous Initiative 26, which would have defined a fertilized egg as a person with full human rights.

Written by Editor-in-Chief Jodi Jacobson for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

See all our coverage of the Mississippi Egg-As-Person Defeat here, our coverage of Mississippi Initiative (Prop) 26 here, and our coverage of egg-as-person initiatives here.

In a decisive and resounding victory in one of the most conservative states in the country, Mississippi voters defeated--by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent as of this writing--the dangerous Initiative 26, which would have defined a fertilized egg as a person with full human rights.  Had it passed, Initiative 26 would have outlawed all forms of abortion and many forms of birth control. The law would have made illegal many forms of fertility treatment and would potentially have criminalized miscarriage.  It would also have endangered pregnant women by making their rights to health, to health care and to bodily integrity subservient to blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses no matter how dire the woman's condition might be or what her situation. 

See all our coverage of this issue here.

At the same time, however, the outcome of 26 is bittersweet, given that as of this writing Mississippi voters also appear to have passed Initiative 27, a voter ID law that will disenfranchise many of the minority voters who already suffer discrimination in a state with a history of denying African Americans their right to vote.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And as usual reality is hitting us in the face, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    after a few hard fought victories. Sigh. Again, why do voters vote against themselves? This why I don't see how working from within the system makes the necessary changes needed in our government.

    •  Don't see how voter ID will disenfranchise anyone. (0+ / 0-)

      I just don't see it.

      Who doesn't have a photo ID?  Even if someone didn't have a photo ID, part of the amendment requires the State to provide one.  Free photo ID.

      You have to have photo ID to drive, to cash a check, to use a credit or debit card, to sign up for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, to check into a hospital, etc.

      I have heard, over and over, that the requirement to have a photo ID will cause disenfranchisement, but no one has explained precisely how that could happen.

      The lack of photo ID can, however, have serious consequences, such as voter fraud (having one person vote for several others -- or dozens of others), or carrying a busload of people from precinct to precinct to vote multiple times. Voter fraud is the same as disenfranchisement, as it "cancels out" the votes of citizens who vote properly, rendering their votes useless.

      I'm a Mississippian.  It's extremely difficult to purge voter rolls in Mississippi, so lots of folks who are dead, or who have moved to different counties or states, are still on the rolls.  Voter ID will prevent dishonest folks from waltzing in and voting in the place of those who are dead or gone.

      •  I think the argument that I have seen (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JTinDC, TBug

        is that it's fixing a non-existent problem.

      •  Nice GOP talking point ya got there. (0+ / 0-)

        Who doesn't have a photo ID? Poor people and older people who have never needed one because they've never owned a car. Oh, and these are people more likely to vote for Dems. Make no mistake, voter ID laws are intended to make it less likely for people more likely to vote Dem to cast their votes.

        State will provide one? Sure, and how many hoops will people be required to jump through in an attempt to get them to give up?

        As for voter fraud, just how rampant a problem is it in MS?

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Wed Nov 09, 2011 at 04:10:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one can know -- no way to check without ID (0+ / 0-)

          First, I don't deal in talking points for either party.  I'm disgusted with both for reasons I've made clear in other posts.

          Second, your argument is circular.

          Without some sort of voter ID, how could anyone check to see if voter fraud is happening?  

          Without ID to vote, there is no way to measure this.

          Also, no one has given ANY statistics to verify your contention that old folks (or poor folks) don't have a photo ID.  They had to have one to receive Social Security (and for the other reasons I mentioned above).

          Third, you presume that a drivers licence is the only photo ID available -- which is simply not true.  My son did not have a drivers license for nearly 4 years (suspended license -- sore subject), yet he acquired a state photo ID for a small fee -- no hoops.  Now the fee will be waived for anyone who wants one.  In any event, any impediment to receiving a photo ID would be instantly challenged in federal court -- and quickly declared unconstitutional -- as well it should be.

          Fourth, in my (entirely subjective) experience, the elderly are the most likely group to vote.  They are the most dependent upon government for all or most of their income -- and have a keen interest in both state and federal elections.  Certainly politicians believe this, as they constantly appeal to elderly voters as election season approaches.  No statistics to back this up -- just personal observation.

          Finally, I want everyone to be able to vote in every election.  I just don't want anyone to be able to vote more than once per election.

          The hype I've heard about this issue sounds more like fearmongering a bogeymen that any real objection.

          As the law is implemented, we'll be able to tell whether the fears raised in this and other diaries are well-founded.  And, if they are, I'll be the first to admit it -- and in line with others to rectify any problems.

  •  If it had passed, it would have been (0+ / 0-)

    a boon for pregnant women prisoners. All their lawyer would have to do is file a habeas corpus on behalf of the fetus.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site