Yeson26.net and other "personhood" supporters are suffering a massive backlash as more and more Mississippians discover the true purpose and consequences of this initiative.
The Personhood movement has chosen to poison the well by linking Mississippians for Healthy Families to "liberal" organizations such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. They have even gone as far as to create a fake website to spread this fallacy. No one who has dealt with these people and seen their dishonest tactics at work before should be surprised. It is becoming increasingly common to hear pro-lifers on the ground spread misinformation like, "Oh, it won't outlaw the Pill." or "Planned Parenthood must be paying you a lot to post on here." Expect these tactics to grow over the next month as voting day draws near.
I want to focus today, however, on the Yeson26.net FAQ redo that, no doubt, sprung up in response to the growing opposition to the personhood amendment. Fortunately, I have a copy of their previous page saved so that we can compare the content, see how they've changed their language, and decide whether they are honest.
Saving the mother's life:
Saving the mother's life:
 |
| Old FAQ |
 |
| New FAQ |
This does not address the question of what will happen when a mother needs a treatment to save her life that will kill an healthy fetus. Imagine that the mother is determined to have cancer and needs immediate chemotherapy. The chemotherapy will save her life but kill the fetus within her. If a situation arises when the family must make the awful decision between the mother and a living fetus, who decides which one lives and which one dies? Can a doctor be sued or, even worse, charged if the mother or fetus dies during such a treatment? Or will it become as it is in anti-abortion countries such as El Salvador and Nicaragua where doctors fear to treat pregnant women with complications at all?
Contraception:
I believe the first statement is the more accurate of the two. In their first FAQ, they claim that they don't have a problem with contraceptives but are totally against abortifacients. What they did not tell their audience is that a major wing of the pro-life movement considers the Pill and IUDs to be abortifacients because they can change the lining of the uterus to make it "hostile" to implantation.
Now that people are being educated on how the pills and IUDs work, Yeson26 has had to walk back their statement quite a bit and claim now that they have nothing against the pill - they just want to outlaw RU486. Is this true? If personhood begins at the moment of conception (or "fertilization") then anything that would prevent the implantation of that "person" is an abortifacient and, therefore, illegal. Do not let these clowns fool you into thinking they don't want to take away your birth control. They most definitely DO! Consider the words of the Director of Legislative Affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin when he said, "Those who don't turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point... hurt the anti-abortion cause."
Notice that Yeson26 has also removed their language regarding prostaglandin suppositories now that people realize that these drugs are given to women to induce labor in normal, healthy pregnancies.
IVF Treatment and Stem Cell Research:
Yeson26 has been consistent on this issue but a bit disingenuous in my opinion. They act like storing these embryos is no big deal but what are the consequences of having these embryos sustained? If they are "persons" then can they be claimed as dependents? Can they be counted as members of the household when it comes to welfare, food stamps, medicaid and such? If a technician drops a storage unit and the embryos die, is he a mass murderer, guilty of manslaughter, or maybe guilty of criminally negligent homicide? If the embryos are frozen indefinitely, is that considered "cruel and unusual punishment" since those "persons" are condemned to a lifetime of non-sentience? Have we deprived them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
As a bit of an aside, keep in mind that the Catholic Church is against IVF and all the most extreme anti-choice positions seems to stream from them.
Now let's look at some of their new entries:
It is indeed cruel but it is definitely not silly. Ask Rennie Gibbs, Bei Bei Shuai, and Amanda Kimbrough how silly it is that they face life in prison because of their miscarriages. These are not scare tactics but the real consequences of passing an overly-broad initiative such as 26.
Let's be honest - children are an expense whether they are wanted or not. Unwanted children cost the state a fortune in food, healthcare, and (all too often) crime. It would be wonderful if there were families lined up to adopt unwanted kids but there just aren't that many white people of means who want children that are Black, Hispanic, mixed, physically or mentally disabled, addicted to crack, or with fetal alcohol syndrome. Most white people I know who have adopted have spent a lot of money to make sure they get a cute white baby that looks just like them. I wish people were more tolerant and accepting of unwanted kids, but they're not. Most unwanted kids are not going to get adopted. They're going to be shuffled around in foster care, hopefully not abused or neglected too badly, and too many of them will live as adults on the state's dime either on welfare programs or in jail.
For the record, those who have adopted or who provide excellent foster-care, I salute you! We need more people like you.
Yes, indeed, Personhood will end abortion in Mississippi...well, it will end legal and safe abortion.I find it interesting that they are fighting what they perceive to be a huge "abortion industry" in our state. Mississippi has a very definite number of Planned Parenthood clinics that perform abortions: 1. [Correction: the PP clinic does NOT do abortions. The Jackson clinic that does abortions is not a PP clinic.]
So the answer here is, unequivocally, YES. Personhood supporters and Yeson26 want to take away your family's right to choose what's best for you. They think that they, using the power of the state, should be able to impose their will on your family. They think that they, not you, should make important medical decisions that will affect you for the rest of your life. They don't care how old you are, whether you've been raped, or whether you're well enough to bear. All they care about is making their religion into law and they have no problem using dirty tactics like making fake websites or using language that hides their true intent to do so.
If you enjoy your life and your liberty...
If you think you should make your own medical decisions...
If you think your religion is YOUR business and not theirs...
If you think there's a better way to end elective abortion...
If you think the women you love are people and not property...
then join the fight and vote NO on initiative 26!
Contraception:
 |
| Old FAQ |
 |
| New FAQ |
I believe the first statement is the more accurate of the two. In their first FAQ, they claim that they don't have a problem with contraceptives but are totally against abortifacients. What they did not tell their audience is that a major wing of the pro-life movement considers the Pill and IUDs to be abortifacients because they can change the lining of the uterus to make it "hostile" to implantation.
Now that people are being educated on how the pills and IUDs work, Yeson26 has had to walk back their statement quite a bit and claim now that they have nothing against the pill - they just want to outlaw RU486. Is this true? If personhood begins at the moment of conception (or "fertilization") then anything that would prevent the implantation of that "person" is an abortifacient and, therefore, illegal. Do not let these clowns fool you into thinking they don't want to take away your birth control. They most definitely DO! Consider the words of the Director of Legislative Affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin when he said, "Those who don't turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point... hurt the anti-abortion cause."
Notice that Yeson26 has also removed their language regarding prostaglandin suppositories now that people realize that these drugs are given to women to induce labor in normal, healthy pregnancies.
IVF Treatment and Stem Cell Research:
 |
| Old FAQ |
 |
| New FAQ |
Yeson26 has been consistent on this issue but a bit disingenuous in my opinion. They act like storing these embryos is no big deal but what are the consequences of having these embryos sustained? If they are "persons" then can they be claimed as dependents? Can they be counted as members of the household when it comes to welfare, food stamps, medicaid and such? If a technician drops a storage unit and the embryos die, is he a mass murderer, guilty of manslaughter, or maybe guilty of criminally negligent homicide? If the embryos are frozen indefinitely, is that considered "cruel and unusual punishment" since those "persons" are condemned to a lifetime of non-sentience? Have we deprived them of their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
As a bit of an aside, keep in mind that the Catholic Church is against IVF and all the most extreme anti-choice positions seems to stream from them.
Now let's look at some of their new entries:
 |
| New FAQ |
It is indeed cruel but it is definitely not silly. Ask Rennie Gibbs, Bei Bei Shuai, and Amanda Kimbrough how silly it is that they face life in prison because of their miscarriages. These are not scare tactics but the real consequences of passing an overly-broad initiative such as 26.
 |
| New FAQ |
Let's be honest - children are an expense whether they are wanted or not. Unwanted children cost the state a fortune in food, healthcare, and (all too often) crime. It would be wonderful if there were families lined up to adopt unwanted kids but there just aren't that many white people of means who want children that are Black, Hispanic, mixed, physically or mentally disabled, addicted to crack, or with fetal alcohol syndrome. Most white people I know who have adopted have spent a lot of money to make sure they get a cute white baby that looks just like them. I wish people were more tolerant and accepting of unwanted kids, but they're not. Most unwanted kids are not going to get adopted. They're going to be shuffled around in foster care, hopefully not abused or neglected too badly, and too many of them will live as adults on the state's dime either on welfare programs or in jail.
For the record, those who have adopted or who provide excellent foster-care, I salute you! We need more people like you.
 |
| New FAQ |
Yes, indeed, Personhood will end abortion in Mississippi...well, it will end legal and safe abortion.I find it interesting that they are fighting what they perceive to be a huge "abortion industry" in our state. Mississippi has a very definite number of Planned Parenthood clinics that perform abortions: 1. [Correction: the PP clinic does NOT do abortions. The Jackson clinic that does abortions is not a PP clinic.]
 |
| New FAQ |
So the answer here is, unequivocally, YES. Personhood supporters and Yeson26 want to take away your family's right to choose what's best for you. They think that they, using the power of the state, should be able to impose their will on your family. They think that they, not you, should make important medical decisions that will affect you for the rest of your life. They don't care how old you are, whether you've been raped, or whether you're well enough to bear. All they care about is making their religion into law and they have no problem using dirty tactics like making fake websites or using language that hides their true intent to do so.
If you enjoy your life and your liberty...
If you think you should make your own medical decisions...
If you think your religion is YOUR business and not theirs...
If you think there's a better way to end elective abortion...
If you think the women you love are people and not property...
then join the fight and vote NO on initiative 26!
Excellent post! I've linked to it from my blog. I believe they cry "Fraud" and "Deception" about others so much because they do it so often themselves. :)
ReplyDeleteVote No on 26
Thank you so much for keeping up with the deception and spin that these anti-choice/anti-liberty/pro government intrusion folks continue to perpetuate.
ReplyDeleteKeep them honest in spite of their tendency to avoid being so.
Sharing this with others!
Steve Schlicht
Biloxi MS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health
ReplyDelete"severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." - APA
Excellent post! Very well done! Just one correction:
ReplyDeletePlanned Parenthood's only clinic in the state (H'burg) does not perform abortions. The only abortion clinic in MS is the Jackson Women's Health Clinic.
Thank you all for the feedback. I have made the necessary correction.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to use the images of their Old FAQ as well as the anti-26 sign I made for this post for all your "No on 26" needs.
The statement on IVF is entirely disingenous, and I can tell you exactly why.
ReplyDeleteAt most, a few dozen frozen embryos per year are discarded by the three infertility clinics operating in Mississippi. In contrast, literally hundreds to of embryos die in those same clinics during the process of being frozen and thawed, which is an essential component of IVF.
If it's important enough to pass a constitutional amendment to protect the few dozen embryos, why is it OK to deliberately put all those others through a process which you know will kill half of them? And if it's not OK, that radically changes the nature of IVF, to the point where it's a de facto ban.
My website, parentsagainstms26.com, specifically addresses the potential impact of personhood on IVF.
Why in the hell did they mention adoption in answer to a question that has nothing to do with it? They must have some funding from the NCFA... Also: They eem to forget that adoption is punishing the child, and for seeming so gung-ho about the rights of babies, they seem to have forgotten the right of a baby to stay with its natural mother/father, unless it is proven dangerous and then with its natural family and extended kin.
ReplyDeleteOh, but wait. That would likely require welfare.
Their hypocrisy on every facet of this issue is truly amazing. It's impossible to pin them down and get a straight, fact-based answer.
ReplyDelete@afamilyofmyown: Although I agree with the NO vote, adoption is not and never has been "punishing the child". My older sister is adopted and I can't help but take offense to that comment. I hope and pray that you meant that comment to be facetious. Please stay on track.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if afamilyofmyown was talking about the feeling some adopted kids must have of being "throwaways." I hope s/he will come back and clarify. I wish we could adopt since we can't have children but my health just doesn't allow for it.
ReplyDeleteYeap. Just thought I would add that I have an adopted brother who is mentally retarded- he is actually thirty years old now, and doing well. So in the case that "most unwanted kids are not going to get adopted" ..."most" is not "all"...anyway... somehow I feel that you are defining an unborn child's rights according to situation... I want to know why the baby of a rape victim has less right to life than the baby born in good circumstances? Why does situation affect the right to life? Women most definitely have their rights, however, why is disposing of an unwanted baby supposed to be one of them? Also, before we start discussing how horrible this child's life will be on welfare, let's give it a chance to be born..
ReplyDeleteThose are some really good questions. I find the idea of human beings as nothing more than disposable property to be disgusting which is one reason why I find the Old Testament so distasteful.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, it comes down to a balance of rights for me. Yes, I think even the unborn have some right to life. Yes, I think women have a right to liberty. But no, I do not think that anyone has a right to life that is superior in every way to another's liberty.
For example, I have a right to live but I have no right to demand that you donate your blood, tissue, or organs to prolong my life. You may choose to donate to me but I can't force you and the state can't force you. If we say that the right to life is always superior, then by law I could force you to donate whatever I need to keep me alive. That infringes on your right to life and liberty too much, I think.
I hope that helps clarify my position.
Wow, I never thought of it that way, Tweenky D, but it really does make sense! Excellent post!
ReplyDelete