• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mississippi to pass law that may ban contraceptives

mertex

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
2,382
Reaction score
601
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You read that right! Mississippi has initiated a bill aimed at banning abortions, but written so broad and vague so as to possibly ban contraceptives, in-vitro fertilization, etc. I'm sure the people in Mississippi think they are just banning abortion, won't they be surprised! Wonder how re-districting will be handled when they have to include every fetus (they will be considered persons)! What is scary is people who think like this not being able to use contraceptives and flooding the country with more of the same!

Mississippi ‘Personhood’ Law Could Ban Abortions And Birth Control


HP-Mississippi voters will be allowed to decide on a ballot measure that defines “personhood” from the moment of fertilization, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week. The measure could potentially outlaw abortions, birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research across the state.
Measure 26, which will bypass the legislature and go straight to a popular ballot vote,redefines the term “person” as it appears throughout Mississippi’s Bill of Rights to include “all human beings from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the proposal earlier this year, not based on its content or constitutionality, but because Mississippi state law says a ballot initiative cannot be used to change the Bill of Rights.
The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit in a 7-2 ruling, saying that it had no power to review any ballot initiative before the actual vote takes place.
The ballot vote is scheduled for Nov. 8.
Mississippi 'Personhood' Law Could Ban Abortions And Birth Control | Kimora Cochran
 
Wow. Love the comment by one poster under the article. I shall steal it and put it in quotes here. I think it says everything needed about the pure idiocy of this bill.

Geesh! talk about doing the moonwalk back into the dark ages!
Click to expand...

You know what they call people who practice the Rythm Method for birth control?



Parents!


If this passes, Mississippi's going to get crowded.
 
Chenoa said:
Wow. Love the comment by one poster under the article. I shall steal it and put it in quotes here. I think it says everything needed about the pure idiocy of this bill.



You know what they call people who practice the Rythm Method for birth control?



Parents!


If this passes, Mississippi's going to get crowded.
Click to expand...

I know, it seems Republicans won't be happy till we're back in the dark ages. How did they ever get so "smart"?
 
Eh, even if it does pass, it will be struck down almost immediately. It's unconstitutional by both the US and the Mississippi state constitutions.
 
This is a good initiative and I support it. This will not ban contraceptives though, they prevent fertilization. I'm glad to see Mississippi taking an initiative to correct the greatest injustice of our time: elective abortions.
 
digsbe said:
This is a good initiative and I support it. This will not ban contraceptives though, they prevent fertilization. I'm glad to see Mississippi taking an initiative to correct the greatest injustice of our time: elective abortions.
Click to expand...

Many hormonal contraceptives don't prevent fertilization, they prevent implantation as a back up measure in case fertilization is not prevented.... It is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. The neuvaring is a popular birth control that will prevent implantation, and I know because a Catholic showed my sister the medical pamphlet from the drug company and tried to convience her to stop killing her children every month.
 
digsbe said:
This will not ban contraceptives though, they prevent fertilization.
Click to expand...

Actually, some kinds of contraceptive can also prevent implantation, which causes the death of a fertilized embryo. So the Mississippi law would ban those kinds.
 
molten_dragon said:
Actually, some kinds of contraceptive can also prevent implantation, which causes the death of a fertilized embryo. So the Mississippi law would ban those kinds.
Click to expand...

Most bc doesn't prevent ovulation either... It prevents it for so long, I think it's 28 days, and then the next 7 pills allow ovulation and menstruation begins. There are other hormones in bc preventing fertilization and affecting the uterine mucus so a fertilized egg can't implant. No bc absolutely prevents and stops a female from ovulating... the amount of hormones would be dangerous and completely unnecessary
 
digsbe said:
This is a good initiative and I support it. This will not ban contraceptives though, they prevent fertilization. I'm glad to see Mississippi taking an initiative to correct the greatest injustice of our time: elective abortions.
Click to expand...

Not all of them - some work by making the uterine lining a hostile environment for the embryo to embed into so THOSE methods would be outlawed under this act.

In fact there would be a lot of things outlawed under this act that on the surface of it have nothing to do with reproduction. You could make a good argument that pregnant women not expose themselves to "teratogens" and since most women do not know they are pregnant until about the second or third week then that means that NO women of child bearing age should go near any teratogenic substances just in case they are pregnant - which means no alcohol for women, no lots of things actually
 
mertex said:
I know, it seems Republicans won't be happy till we're back in the dark ages. How did they ever get so "smart"?
Click to expand...

You know I don't blame this on your average, concerned Republican any more than I would blame it on a Democrat. I blame it on the extremists in the party, who use fiery rhetoric and fear of hell to get what they want. And somewhere in that mix is the "good ole boy" system run amuck.

Les Riley the founder and director of Personhood Mississippi is far-right extremist. He belonged to the Christian separatist group Christian Exodus (a Christian secessionist group that has close ties with the neo-confederate "League of the South". He's a constitutionalist who wants to
“restore American government to its Constiutional [sic] limits and American jurisprudence to its Biblical presuppositions. The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law.”
Click to expand...

I think this is a bid by secessionist extremists and constitutionists to pull away from Federal law. Read up on them, visit their websites. I think you'll get the general idea.
 
Chenoa said:
You know I don't blame this on your average, concerned Republican any more than I would blame it on a Democrat. I blame it on the extremists in the party, who use fiery rhetoric and fear of hell to get what they want. And somewhere in that mix is the "good ole boy" system run amuck.

Les Riley the founder and director of Personhood Mississippi is far-right extremist. He belonged to the Christian separatist group Christian Exodus (a Christian secessionist group that has close ties with the neo-confederate "League of the South". He's a constitutionalist who wants to


I think this is a bid by secessionist extremists and constitutionists to pull away from Federal law. Read up on them, visit their websites. I think you'll get the general idea.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't live in Mississippi I would almost suggest you allow them to experiment with this for a couple of years (cringe worthy I know I keep thinking of the absolute harm this will do) but sometimes people have to learn for themselves that you cannot legislate against abortion.
 
mertex said:
You read that right! Mississippi has initiated a bill aimed at banning abortions, but written so broad and vague so as to possibly ban contraceptives, in-vitro fertilization, etc. I'm sure the people in Mississippi think they are just banning abortion, won't they be surprised! Wonder how re-districting will be handled when they have to include every fetus (they will be considered persons)! What is scary is people who think like this not being able to use contraceptives and flooding the country with more of the same!

Mississippi ‘Personhood’ Law Could Ban Abortions And Birth Control


HP-Mississippi voters will be allowed to decide on a ballot measure that defines “personhood” from the moment of fertilization, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week. The measure could potentially outlaw abortions, birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research across the state.
Measure 26, which will bypass the legislature and go straight to a popular ballot vote,redefines the term “person” as it appears throughout Mississippi’s Bill of Rights to include “all human beings from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the proposal earlier this year, not based on its content or constitutionality, but because Mississippi state law says a ballot initiative cannot be used to change the Bill of Rights.
The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit in a 7-2 ruling, saying that it had no power to review any ballot initiative before the actual vote takes place.
The ballot vote is scheduled for Nov. 8.
Mississippi 'Personhood' Law Could Ban Abortions And Birth Control | Kimora Cochran
Click to expand...

I have a question,

How come every time there is a law banning abortion, the pro-choicers scream "it's so broad and vague! It could ban contraceptives, condoms, even sex!"? Is there ever an abortion law that ISN'T vague?
 
SheWolf said:
Many hormonal contraceptives don't prevent fertilization, they prevent implantation as a back up measure in case fertilization is not prevented.... It is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. The neuvaring is a popular birth control that will prevent implantation, and I know because a Catholic showed my sister the medical pamphlet from the drug company and tried to convience her to stop killing her children every month.
Click to expand...
but to be fair, one of the arguments from the pro-choice crowd, that i can remember, is that for birth control, preventing implementation is both rare and unavoidable. So, i'm thinking, why worry about it then?
 
bowerbird said:
As long as you don't live in Mississippi I would almost suggest you allow them to experiment with this for a couple of years (cringe worthy I know I keep thinking of the absolute harm this will do) but sometimes people have to learn for themselves that you cannot legislate against abortion.
Click to expand...

No, but a bit too close for my liking. Alabama. Which has it's own brand of insanity going at all times. Entertaining, but terrifying on occasion.

I think you may be right. Let it go on through and just watch. Sometimes that's what it takes. I think they may be surprised at what comes out of this however. You are absolutely correct about birth control. Right now it looks like the pill and condoms. Unless, prohibiting ovulation suddenly becomes a target also. But, I don't think that the citizens of Mississippi would ever vote that in. I could be wrong though.

Still like my joke and moonwalk thingy though :2razz:
 
DarkWizard12 said:
but to be fair, one of the arguments from the pro-choice crowd, that i can remember, is that for birth control, preventing implementation is both rare and unavoidable. So, i'm thinking, why worry about it then?
Click to expand...

Because if it is capable of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, then it is considered abortion and can then be banned for use since it causes abortions.
 
Chenoa said:
Because if it is capable of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, then it is considered abortion and can then be banned for use since it causes abortions.
Click to expand...

Then I guess the state government will act accordingly. If 'abortion' is so rare though, from a medical perspective as a result from a contraceptive, then I doubt any state government would take it to account. It's like banning the flu shot, just cuz one person had an allergic reaction and died from it.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I have a question,

How come every time there is a law banning abortion, the pro-choicers scream "it's so broad and vague! It could ban contraceptives, condoms, even sex!"? Is there ever an abortion law that ISN'T vague?
Click to expand...

No, in fact there isn't - take it from me abortion is illegal here in Queensland and OUR laws are supposed to be almost as tight as those Mississippi are proposing

Still are not worth the paper they are printed on
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Then I guess the state government will act accordingly. If 'abortion' is so rare though, from a medical perspective as a result from a contraceptive, then I doubt any state government would take it to account. It's like banning the flu shot, just cuz one person had an allergic reaction and died from it.
Click to expand...

I hope they do, but don't hold your breath on that. If it can happen even once, it's breaking the law and that's enough to get it outlawed. Depends really on how far they're willing to test the voters of Mississippi and the Federal Government. I doubt any of this will stick.

As Amendment 26 is written, the initiative would:

-Limit access or outlaw many commonly used forms of birth control, including pills and IUDs.

-Harm fertility research and access to fertility treatments.

-Make criminalizing miscarriages an easier task, as 26 does not distinguish between spontaneous miscarriage and murder.

-Criminalize life-saving measures for women suffering ectopic or tubal pregnancies.

-Drive up the costs of Medicaid, Medicare, health insurance and medical malpractice insurance.

-Violate patient-doctor confidentiality.

-Allow the government — not doctor and patient — to make important, private health decisions

Sounds like a lovely Amendment. Gosh knows I'd just love to have to live under that.

In defining a legal human being from the moment of fertilization, Initiative 26, often called the "Personhood Amendment," would criminalize abortion in Mississippi, with no exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother. Personhood USA, the advocacy group pushing the amendment, and the Yes on 26 campaign are painting the issue as a black-and-white abortion ban.

"Plain and simple, this seeks to establish human life in the womb," Greg Sanders, the executive director of the Yes on 26 campaign, told HuffPost. "Obviously there's no exception for rape and incest. It's a human life, no matter how it's created." Huffington Post
Click to expand...
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Then I guess the state government will act accordingly. If 'abortion' is so rare though, from a medical perspective as a result from a contraceptive, then I doubt any state government would take it to account. It's like banning the flu shot, just cuz one person had an allergic reaction and died from it.
Click to expand...

Are you also going to ban ALL abortifactants?

At first, right-wing pharmacists only refused to dispense drugs they claimed caused abortions, and the government rolled over to allow them to do. Then the right-wing pharmacists refused to dispense contraceptives, and again the government rolled over. Now the right-wing pharmacists are refusing to dispense vitamins and antibiotics, if they are prescribed by the "wrong" people.
Click to expand...

Pharmacists Refusing to Fill Prescriptions for Vitamins, Antibiotics

Are we going to stop women drinking coffee because it has been tenuously linked to miscarriages?
 
OOOPS!!

Seems they had better ban Papaya as well!!

Women in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries have long used green papaya as a folk remedy for contraception and abortion. Enslaved women in the West Indies were noted for consuming papaya to prevent pregnancies and thus preventing their children from being born into slavery.[15] Medical research in animals has confirmed the contraceptive and abortifacient capability of papaya, and also found that papaya seeds have contraceptive effects in adult male langur monkeys, and possibly in adult male humans, as well.[16] Unripe papaya is especially effective in large amounts or high doses. Ripe papaya is not teratogenic and will not cause miscarriage in small amounts. Phytochemicals in papaya may suppress the effects of progesterone.[17]
Click to expand...

Carica papaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
DarkWizard12 said:
but to be fair, one of the arguments from the pro-choice crowd, that i can remember, is that for birth control, preventing implementation is both rare and unavoidable. So, i'm thinking, why worry about it then?
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about. The pro choice crowd holds the position that taking bc is the woman and the girls choice, and she should have the right to make her own reproductive decisions. Aborting a zygote because of the birth control isn't really an issue to us anyway.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Then I guess the state government will act accordingly. If 'abortion' is so rare though, from a medical perspective as a result from a contraceptive, then I doubt any state government would take it to account. It's like banning the flu shot, just cuz one person had an allergic reaction and died from it.
Click to expand...

Not only does your statement show the hypocrisy of the pro life... it's a great reason why this bill should be challenged and shot down because of it's language and goal.

If it's murder to kill a 1 to 6 week old zygote/fetus, why should it not be considered murder to kill one that's 1 to 7 days old? If the pro life want to make laws about protecting and do so on gestational phases, then abortion rights as they stand now, shouldn't be a problem.
 
Chenoa said:
Sounds like a lovely Amendment. Gosh knows I'd just love to have to live under that.
Click to expand...

No ****. I'd feel disgusted to walk down the streets of Mississippi as a woman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom