Jackson Free Press

Within the last couple of hours, Sen. Joey Fillingane introduced a resolution to amend the state constitution "to protect the life of every unborn child from conception to birth."

Concurrent Resolution 555 also calls for the prohibition of public funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Jackson Free Press will follow this resolution closely. Read our previous coverage, and check back for details.

Previous Commentsshow

Read archived coverage of the Personhood issue at jfp.ms/personhood. Fillingane's resolution has several problems. First, it does not define "conception." Here's why that's a problem, from one of our earlier stories: "Strategy aside, the question of "when life begins" has the potential to divide even committed anti-abortion advocates. The anti-abortion movement has typically argued that life--with all its certain inalienable rights--begins at conception, without actually defining when conception occurs. Some say conception should be defined as fertilization, when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote before implanting in the uterus. Others say conception occurs when the fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall. "A few days before the initiative went to a vote, Gov. Haley Barbour voiced concerns that the initiative's definition was too narrow. "I believe life begins at conception," he said on NBC. "Unfortunately, this Personhood Amendment doesn't say that. It says life begins at fertilization or cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." "Then Personhood supporters rushed to correct Barbour. "I want to make it simple," Dr. Shani Mack said at a press conference after Barbour's TV appearance. "Conception is to fertilization as the Republican Party is to the GOP." "Barbour said later that he voted for the initiative, saying: "I believe life begins at conception. So I think the right thing to do was vote for it," according to an Associated Press report. "Initiative 26 forced a narrow definition of conception that most Mississippi voters were unwilling to accept." (From Personhood's Next Move: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/personhoods_next_move_11232011/) Then note that Fillingane's resolution seeks to put the issue before voters (yes, the same voters who turned personhood down last November). If this issue is too much like the failed Initiative 26, that could be a problem: "Now that voters have rejected the Personhood Amendment, proponents cannot put the same initiative, or one that is substantially the same, on the ballot for at least two years. In two years, Mississippians will vote on municipal offices. The next statewide election is not until 2015." (From Personhood Supporters Shocked, Undeterred: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/personhood_supporters_shocked_undeterred_110911/) So it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

lizwaibel

Feb 13 2012

Parents Against Personhood has also noted that Fillingane's resolution only protects unborn children "to the extent permitted by the federal Constitution." Parents Against Personhood says, "since the scope of the amendment is limited by the federal Constitution, it would not even impact abortion, which is protected by Roe v. Wade. It would, however, potentially affect birth control and infertility, neither of which are protected by constitutional law." (Source: http://parentsagainstpersonhood.com/2012/02/13/mississippi-personhood-legislation-filed/)

lizwaibel

Feb 13 2012

From Twitter: Senator Fillingane introduced Personhood legislation today even after 4 out of 5 counties in his district voted it down.

Valerie Wells

Feb 13 2012

This is the explanation of the measure Fillingane wants on the ballot: "This proposed constitutional amendment creates a new section to protect the life of every unborn child from conception to birth. The section also prohibits the use of public funds to pay for abortions, except to save the life of the mother."

Valerie Wells

Feb 13 2012

Talk about well-considered legislation. What the heck is Fillingane doing? He're rejected the wishes of the voters, and he's going to waste time and resources to do it. I would think it's to get cheap votes -- but considering that most people in his district voted down Personhood, even that doesn't make a lick of sense.

DonnaLadd

Feb 13 2012

Maybe Fillingane needs to check his job description. He's supposed to be working for the people in his district, not using his power to further his personal ideological aims. If I were one of his constituents who voted No on 26, I might be reminding him of that (hint, hint), especially if I had voted for him.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 13 2012

I swear conservatives kill me with cost conscious driven legislation one minute, then yet are anti-planned parenthood? That is so asinine, asi-ten, asi-eleven, asi-twelve - oh hell, you guys get my point.

Duan C.

Feb 13 2012

Ronni--I think everyone that is in or around the Hattiesburg area that voted No on 26 should be very upset about this. When did we reach the point in politics where constituents aren't even really considered during the "process"?

Lori G

Feb 13 2012

I think all Mississippi politicians should be subjected to a drug test because these kinds of bills show they must be high. No public money without testing. Insist on it. Every time they put forth a bone-headed bill, insist on it again.

gwilly

Feb 13 2012

I agree with gwilly, who I assume would like to extend that same drug testing to recipients of public entitlements such as welfare? "No public money without testing" can be his slogan when he runs for office. I'll back him.

RobbieR

Feb 14 2012

It is stupidly short-sighted to talk about drug-testing people before they get any kind of public assistance, especially if the idea is to refuse them public assistance because they are addicted to some kind of drug (I assume you're including prescription drugs as well). Many people who are addicted to drugs (certainly not all; there are plenty of rich ones, too, who benefit from corporate welfare every day, but I digress) ... Let me start over: Many people who are addicted to drugs are addicted to drugs because they started taking them in the first place due to their circumstances. They take drugs to cover over the fact that they are having trouble coping, whether with finances, mental illness or whatever. If they do not get any kind of public assistance, they are among the people most likely to keep spiraling and end up costing society most—money, health care and in the toll of crime. These whole meme of "drug test first" before giving someone assistance is clearly designed to appeal to people who have ignorant visions of who gets public assistance—the whole "welfare queen" scam. (Imagine: an elderly white woman who is addicted to prescription drugs being refused money to help her live and eat; if you don't apply the standard equally to her then, well, you're a bigot). Now, if you want to drug-test someone only for the purpose of giving them additional assistance to help them get off drugs and re-engage in society, then that's a conversation that's at least worth having -- and doesn't make you sound like you have no clue about the way things work in the real world. In a world that cares about other people, we don't make people starve or cut off their medical benefits because they have problems. We figure out a way to help them, not punish them for the kinds of problems that infect all of our families. All this reminds me of a prominent Republican politician I know who gathers all his buddies regularly to talk about this kind of thing, and how all "those" people are using drugs anyway, etc., etc. -- then takes his conservative friends to his "farm" to get high on the weekends. A hypocrite is as a hypocrite does.

DonnaLadd

Feb 14 2012

For those who are wondering, we've got a bit more up in today's story: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/person_of_the_day_sen._joey_fillingane_02142012/ It's not a whole lot, but since SC 555 was only introduced yesterday, a lot of the people I talked to haven't even read it yet.

lizwaibel

Feb 14 2012