Thoughts on the Mississippi Elections

On yesterday, Mississippi voters came out in surprisingly high numbers to cast their vote. It is speculated that the proposed initiatives are what boosted voter turnout. Here are my brief thoughts on last night's results:

Initiative 26: The Personhood Amendment

Y'all already know how I felt about this. I wasn't sure how this would turn out; after all, Mississippi is a really conservative state in the middle of the Bible Belt. So it was a relief to see that MS 26 was defeated with 58% of voters rejecting the idea. Actually I'm surprised the numbers weren't closer. Mississippi is showing some progress! Although I don't think we've seen the last of these amendments to essentially make abortion illegal, the rights of women and families are safe for now.

Initiative 27: Voter ID

This one shocked the hell out of me. Mississippians overwhelmingly voted in favor of this amendment, which stated that voters would need to present a government issued ID to vote. How overwhelmingly? Try 62%. 62%. I have to wonder what was going through the minds of those who voted for this. Of course there were some that knew exactly how this would affect future elections. But I have to think that the reason this didn't pass is because people were unaware of what this really means. I believe that many people simply bought the "voter fraud" excuse (which, by the way, has failed to materialize) and thought "well we have to show ID at other places (businesses) so it's the same thing." They didn't consider the disenfranchisement on those who do not have government-issued ID (which happen to be way more blacks and Hispanics than whites). It's proof that you can't just blindly go in and press yes or no. These issues are important and need to be taken seriously; due diligence must be done.

Gubernatorial Election

I can't say I was disappointed here. To be disappointed means that there was some expectation, and as much as I wanted Democratic candidate Johnny Dupree to win, I knew the odds were not in his favor. Republican Phil Bryant won with 61% of the vote. (Sidenote: he has such a slimy, sleazy, "good ol boy" vibe. Which means he'll fit right in with most of these politicians.) One thing that did amuse me was the fact that so many people thought Dupree (who was the first black mayor of Hattiesburg and first black candidate for MS governor) would have won if all the black people in Mississippi had voted. This kind of thinking is similar to those who felt that African-Americans "won" the vote for President Obama. As of 2010, African-Americans only make up 37% of the state's population. So even if every eligible black voter came out and pressed JOHNNY DUPREE, it would not have been enough on its own. And guess what? Not all of them would have voted Democrat! Shocking (and confusing), I know, but it's true. In fact, I know a black man who said he doesn't vote along party lines and voted for Bryant because he felt he was best suited for the job. Again, I didn't understand it, but it just goes to show that you can't assume that all black people are voting Dem, or for the black man. It is what it is.

However, I will say this: the fact that Mayor Dupree made it as far as he did and had such a strong grassroot campaign (pushed by younger voters) shows that we are making some strides. And I am thankful for that.

So those are my two cents on the matter. Feel free to share your thoughts and feelings on this election (or the elections in your state).

NO on MS 26

Like many people with liberal leanings, I am pro-choice. Although I only agree with abortion under certain extreme circumstances, it is my belief that every woman should be in charge of her own body and make her own decision concerning whether to carry a child to term. It is neither okay for me to impose my own morals onto someone, nor for the government to mandate what a woman can and cannot do to her own body. Of course, this gets into the argument about abortion being an act against another and at what point a fetus is considered a person.

Under the proposed Personhood Amendment, a fetus in Mississippi would be considered a person from the moment of conception. The proposed amendment would read:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

While this may sound well and good for those who are anti-abortion, consider this: the amendment in question would also undermines access to safe and reliable infertility medical treatments. After all, for in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryos are created (at which time, under the proposed legislation, they would be "people") and frozen. If an embryo is considered a person at the time of fertilization, IVF would be virtually impossible to administer in this state. Resolve.com, the site of the National Infertility Association, ask these questions:

• If one or more microscopic embryos from an IVF cycle do not develop normally in the lab or fail to result in live births after transfer (all natural events), could the physician, lab, and/or patient be criminally liable?


• Would non-IVF treatments such as simple inseminations be threatened because they carry a risk of miscarriage? (5)  Would clinics with high miscarriage rates after inseminations be at risk for criminal liability?  Could the miscarrying women be subject to criminal charges?


• Not all frozen embryos thaw successfully.  Could embryo freezing be prohibited as too risky?


• Will patients be prevented from donating their frozen embryos to research after they complete infertility treatments?


• Will patients’ medical records be subpoenaed to ensure that no one violated the embryos’ constitutionally guaranteed right to life?


• May women who live in states where personhood laws pass travel to other states for IVF, or would their embryos still be restricted by the law of their home state, such that doctors in no other states would offer her treatment?  Would she be forbidden to move any currently frozen embryos to another state to continue her treatment?


• If infertility patients in personhood states cannot afford to live in another state during treatment, will they simply have to forego the dream of having a family?

There are other issues as well:

Under state law, there are many places where "person" is referenced.

If more than five unrelated embryos/persons are housed in a single building, will it have to be licensed as a child residential care home?

In Pearl, there is an ordinance limiting occupancy to two persons in a bedroom. If a pregnant woman is two people, can she be in the same bed as her husband?

Moreover, IVF is not the only medical treatment that could be prevented by passage of the Personhood Amendment.

Effective treatment of tubal pregnancies, severe preeclampsia, and molar gestation could be prevented.

New stem cell treatments for patients with Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and cancers like leukemia and choriocarcinoma would also be at risk.

If a physician is faced with the choice of saving a woman's life or refusing to harm an embryo/person, could he or she be sued for malpractice no matter what choice was made?

Do Mississippians really want more lawyers interfering in a family's personal medical decisions? (source)

On November 8 I will be voting NO on MS 26. Not just because women deserve the right to terminate if that's their choice, but because women should have the right to have a family even when natural means of doing so are out.