Jackson Free Press

I came across this doing my using Internet browsing. I have been aware of it, but was unsure if others were. There is a ballot initiative, Initiative 22, called the Ultimate Human Life Amendment, that has been started by a group out of Biloxi. The amendment would constitutionally ban abortions in Mississippi, except if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The amendment needs over 103,000 signatures to get on the November 2007 ballot. I would like for you to click on the link, read it, and give me your opinion of it. This link is the author's commentary on the initiative language.

http://www.unbornchildren.com/uhla/commentary.htm

Previous Comments

ID

170085

Comment

Yeah, I did hear about it on MPB this a.m., but forgot to post about it. Thanks for blogging it.

Author

ladd

Date

2006-02-07T00:15:59-06:00

ID

170086

Comment

I'd like to read some posts before I comment on it.

Author

Rep. Erik Fleming

Date

2006-02-07T08:05:15-06:00

ID

170087

Comment

Okay, before I express my opinion about this proposed amendment, I want to make it clear what my position is on abortion. As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of life, but I do not believe in imposing my views on others who do not believe the same way I do. ...and then dropping "liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to further expound on and detail the Right to Life. People are going to eat them for breakfast for doing that. One main concern that arose after the initial draft was that the term "Right to Life" might be twisted by lawyers and courts to include a right to have the State pay for health care or some other right. So, they would support the right for an unborn child to exist but not sustain life after the child is born? Not clear enough for me. Therefore, the government of the state of Mississippi shall recognize and defend the God-given Right to Life of all persons equally in accordance with Section 14 of the State Constitution of 1890. State Constitution of 1890? The same constitution that people fought to revise a few years ago? The same constitution who refers to someone having a mental illness as a "lunatic"? Next, "the God-given Right to Life" is another recognition that our rights are endowed to us from God and not from any man or government. Couoldn't this be applied to the death penalty? (cont'd)

Author

L.W.

Date

2006-02-09T09:29:50-06:00

ID

170088

Comment

Next, "of all persons equally" - THIS IS BIG! - This will force the State of Mississippi to prosecute murder of unborn children using the same murder laws for born persons. Force the state? Ain't happenin'. Prosecute? I think a riot could ensue on that alone. Also, will women be prosecuted for miscarriages? Either ALL abortion is wrong or ALL abortion is right. There can be no middle ground, ethically, technically or legally. Okay, they just said an exception should be made if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Maybe there is a middle ground. In addition for the need of a state to take an absolute position in their laws and constitution, if a state does not act or prosecute abortion as murder, except when saving the life of the mother, then that state is also proving the position by their actions that they do not consider an unborn child to be a human being and a legal person. So a state's walk must follow their talk. Sounds like civil war talk to me. Think about this. If a state does not prosecute for the murder of a black man, or a disabled person, then what they are saying is that they are not people or they are 'less than human'. As a black disabled woman, I don't appreciate them playing either one of those cards. One of the most heart wrenching arguments for compromise on abortion is that one should at least allow for the rare cases of rape or incest. Not to diminish the impact to these women's lives, but if ANY circumstance is allowed then ALL abortion must be legal. One question remains concerning this: Should a child be killed for the crime of their father? Obviously the answer is 'no'. Rare cases of rape or incest? Where are they from, Xanadu? As for asking the question about a child being killed for the crime of his or her father, I believe the way they are framing it is unfair, especially for those who have suffered such a trauma that I hope to never endure. (cont'd)

Author

L.W.

Date

2006-02-09T09:30:33-06:00

ID

170089

Comment

Section 14 does provides for the death penalty as a part of 'due process' If so, isn't that currently the case for abortion, and even euthanasia in some states? I don't understand. The word "person" shall apply to all human beings, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, citizenship, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, health, function, or condition of dependency, at all stages of biological development from conception until natural death. Once again, wouldn't that apply to the death penalty? DAVID ROGERS' COMMENTARY: This is the first mention in the Mississippi Constitution of protection for people regardless of race, color, creed, disability, age, or health condition. I think that we should concentrate on adding that to the state constitution first. As for the UHLA, I don't think they thought through this enough. When the rationale for abortion crept into our culture the same reasoning that breaks the principle of valuing all human life allowed doctors and others to make judgment calls as to whether an older, senior adult or a handicapped person can be killed or allowed to starved to death. These things are happening today in America - our dirty little secrets. This is the result of moving away from the principles and sacredness for ALL human life. They're blaming abortion for corrupt medical practices? I think the fault lies with the doctor. It was not long ago in America's history that dark skinned people were considered by our U.S. Supreme Court as not quite human and could be owned like property. During World War II American citizens of Japanese descent were taken from their homes and placed in concentration camps. Even up to 1970s dark skinned Americans were looked upon as less than human, somehow retarded, a 'lesser species' of human. Don't go there. Come on America! Wake up! All human beings deserve the absolute protection of life. I hate to sound like a broken CD, but what about the death penalty? Once we diverge from this absolute principle then we create a ever growing culture of death, as seen today, by which those in authority who can choose to end someone's life without due process; where teenagers go on shooting sprees in schools; where abuse of children, women, the elderly, the sick, and disabled are now common; where adults murder each other without considering it to be wrong. Blame all of this on abortion? It's much more complicated than that. Why? Because if there is no absolute principle of life anymore then anybody can make up their own rules or change them as they please. God forbid that there may be exceptions to a rule. The Bible shows all kinds of exceptions. They're called miracles. (cont'd)

Author

L.W.

Date

2006-02-09T09:31:16-06:00

ID

170090

Comment

The wording here clearly defines assisting in a suicide as a criminal act and classifies it as murder by the wording, "deprive another person of life", although it leaves the level or classification of murder up to the state legislature. DEATH PENALTY? ...saving the life of the mother and the child is always the priority but if the life of the mother is in danger then the unborn child's life can be taken. This is the weighing of one life against another. Although such situations are known to be extremely rare, sometimes tough choices like this have to be made. The Mississippi UHLA fully understands this and is meant to preserve life. The details of are left up to the state legislature but are under the prescribed guidelines that "every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each." What about the belief in no exceptions being made? Where did that go? Simply put, there are no special funds needed to be set aside in the state budget to specifically carry out this amendment. The carrying out of this amendment will fall under existing enforcement of murder laws by law enforcement and state prosecutors and their existing budgets. WHAT????? How about helping to care for these children once they're here? Why are their no provisions for that? Babies can't live off air and dirt alone.

Author

L.W.

Date

2006-02-09T09:31:58-06:00

ID

170091

Comment

Wow that was disected down to the atomic level, and eloquent as well. It would be hard to argue against the points, that i read, my attention span ommitted the last page. But if you didn't put it on top you didn't think it was that important either. Councilman not to be accusatory or even hypothetical but the " i am going to wait" looks worse than you mean it i'm sure. As your new PR guy I think it is just better left unsaid, you know what you think, your just waiting and with good reason. the dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water, councilman allen...iceberg.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-02-09T09:58:00-06:00

ID

170092

Comment

Wow that was disected down to the atomic level, and eloquent as well. It would be hard to argue against the points, that i read, my attention span ommitted the last page. But if you didn't put it on top you didn't think it was that important either. Thank you for the complement and pointing out my long-windedness at the same time. :-) Actually, the last part you skipped was last only because I wrote according to the order in which the article was written. Councilman not to be accusatory Actually, this is Rep. Fleming's blog. Yes, it's still early...:-)

Author

L.W.

Date

2006-02-09T10:46:02-06:00

ID

170093

Comment

ooooo forgive the typing of the incorrect name. shame on me that is unexcusable and lazy. Back to topic, rep fleming if you would just put your name where councilman allen's was that would be great.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-02-09T11:26:04-06:00

ID

170094

Comment

Well, superstar, I wanted to see what other people felt about a topic as controversial as this one. I can very easily throw in my two cents, though. I think this an attempt to sway the statewide elections in 2007. In 2004, it was gay marriages. This year, if it was not for yours truly, it would have been the hunters. Now, the fundamentalists want to use another emotional issue to bring reactionary voters to the polls. It is obvious that the author of this initiative is a conservative. He deals with the duality of being pro-life at conception but not pro-life in health care and education and is for the death penalty. My position on abortion, as stated in other posts, is that abortion does not equal birth control. I believe abortion should be legal in instances of rape, incest or the health of the mother is in peril. I don't support euthanasia or the death penalty. This amendment, though, as written, is something I cannot support. If you are going to call it the Ultimate Human Life Amendment, then you have to have liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the statement, not take it out, because that is what a quality life is all about. Life is more than just biological function, and it seems the author of this amendment won't agree to that. L.W.'s dissection of the amendment is excellent.

Author

Rep. Erik Fleming

Date

2006-02-10T08:23:11-06:00

ID

170095

Comment

He deals with the duality of being pro-life at conception but not pro-life in health care and education and is for the death penalty. Classic pick and choose hypocrisy. Which is sad, what do these peoples pastors', bishops, clerics, rabis say to them after the fact?

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-02-10T09:39:06-06:00

ID

170096

Comment

Thanks for the complement, Rep. Fleming. I do some of my best writing when I'm ticked off. :-) Superstar, no love lost. Catcha on another blog. Peace...

Author

L.W.

Date

2006-02-10T21:41:23-06:00