Even its supporters admit — Initiative 26 could outlaw in-vitro fertilization

Since it was pioneered in 1978, in-vitro fertilization has been a blessing to the families of approximately four million children who have been brought into the world as a result of it. But Mississippi's proposed "Personhood Amendment" threatens to end IVF practice in the state if voters say "yes" to Initiative 26 on November 8.

That's because the process of in-vitro fertilization involves multiple microscopic eggs being fertilized in a lab in order for a couple to have a reasonable chance at getting pregnant. After three-to-five days, some of the eggs are transferred to a woman's uterus with the hope that one will implant and result in a pregnancy. But in the process, extra fertilized eggs are often left over; these eggs are frozen and stored in the event that further attempts at implantation are necessary. Some are damaged in the process, many are never used. But since the Personhood Amendment would define a fertilized egg as a legal 'person,' anything that endangers them, such as freezing, could be considered a criminal violation.

And that's despite the fact that most fertilized eggs never even become pregnancies. As Dr. Randall Hines, a fertility specialist in Jackson, pointed out to the New York Times, the egg would be considered a 'person' before it even became a pregnancy.

"Once you recognize that the majority of fertilized eggs don't become people, then you recognize how absurd this amendment is," Hines said.

But that isn't stopping the proponents of Initiative 26.

"It would ban some current practices of IVF," conceded Personhood USA President Keith Mason, explaining that doctors would no longer be able to harvest and fertilize multiple eggs. "You create life that you're willing to give life to." 

In other words, if Personhood have their way, doctors could harvest and fertilize no more eggs than a woman was willing to have possibly implanted. That would make the fertilizing of multiple numbers of eggs impossible — except, of course, for potential octomoms.

In practice, IVF would no longer be a feasible option for infertile couples. Infertility treatment would become far less effective and far more dangerous. John Issacs, who is a reproductive endocrinologist and the head of the Mississippi Fertility Institute in Jackson, explains:

"We take eggs out of the ovaries. We fertilize them with the sperm. But we have to fertilize more than one egg. Of the ones that do fertilize, not all are going to grow into embryos. That's why we have to start with a large number of eggs to give someone reasonable chance of pregnancy. We watch them as they grow into embryos. So to define a human being as a fertilized egg — that butts heads with the biologic reality that most fertilized eggs don't result in a live birth."

That would certainly hurt women like Ann, a self-described "pro-life" woman who told her story on the Parents Against MS 26 website. After one unsuccessful IVF cycle in which 21 eggs were retrieved, she still has not been able to achieve pregnancy.

"I will need another IVF cycle if not 2 or 3 more to achieve my dream of becoming a mother," she wrote. "I cannot afford to do IVF if I can only have 2-3 eggs fertilized. I would never have a transfer." 

The procedure can cost around $18,000 per cycle.

"I am pro-life but this amendment is poorly written," she said. "It has so many unintended consequences. One of those consequences would mean no more IVF treatment for me (within the state, anyway)."

Keith Mason dismisses such whining, as he surely must perceive it. Despite the fact that three out of the four doctors who perform IVF in the state have come out against Initiative 26, and despite the fact that numerous medical professionals have corroborated Ann's fears as to what the initiative could do, Mason is adamant:

"We have regulations to protect human life. Personhood would create a need for regulation to protect human life in the IVF process. It may not be as financially lucrative for the IVF physician, but that shouldn't matter when we're dealing with human lives."

So despite their claims that the campaign against 26 is lying about the danger posed to IVF treatment, leaders from Personhood have explicitly stated that, yes, it would end traditional IVF treatment. In their Personhood booklet, Personhood USA explains that "a personhood amendment would make the intentional killing of embryos an act of murder, but there is some very good news for those who are in need of in-vitro fertilization." That good news, they say, is that "there actually is a way to complete the in-vitro fertilization process without causing the death of the unused embryos. It's called oocyte cryopreservation or egg freezing."

What they don't explain is that oocyte cryopreservation is an experimental procedure in which only 2 out of every 100 thawed eggs results in a baby. In fact, a 2004 study showed that of 772 frozen, unfertilized eggs from 68 patients, only 37% survived thawing. Of that, only 124 fertilized successfully. In the end, the 772 frozen eggs resulted in only 13 babies being born. And even with those poor odds, the oocyte cryopreservation procedure costs $12,000 to $20,000 a pop.

That means that for women like Ann, this procedure would be no more feasible than one that suggests fertilizing only 2-3 eggs at a time. If Initiative 26 passes and the desires of its proponents become law, the infertile 10-15% of Mississippi couples who are yearning to build a family would simply be out of luck. That's not acceptable.

On November 8, vote 'NO' on 26.

Yes, Christians can stand against Initiative 26

In Mississippi, many simply assume that voting 'yes' on Initiative 26 — also known as The Personhood Amendment — is the "Christian thing to do." In fact, a conservative Christian friend of mine was recently assailed by a former youth pastor for her opposition to it. He implied that a "true Christian" would support a ballot initiative that would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the term 'person' as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof." In other words, true Christians will certainly vote for Mississippi's proposed Personhood Amendment.

But an increasing number of Roman Catholic Bishops and Christian ministers are coming out against Initiative 26, which is being advertised as a primarily anti-abortion measure. The problem is that defining a fertilized egg as being a 'person' would have many more legal ramifications than just outlawing abortion. 

Episcopal Bishop Duncan M. Gray III wrote that he has "deep reservations about abortion and the death penalty" that come from his "abiding belief in the sanctity of human life and the arbitrary nature of these decisions." But citing the potential for legal nightmares, the pro-life bishop pointed out that "the word 'person' is used over 9,400 times in the Mississippi Annotated Code and the implications for mass confusion and decades of legal challenges over every use of the term are staggering."

Indeed, this simple sounding amendment could outlaw in-vitro fertilization for couples yearning for the blessing of children, certain forms of birth control, and even life-saving cancer treatments that could no longer be performed on pregnant women. Additionally, if a fertilized egg is a person, then a woman whose life is jeopardized by an ectopic pregnancy, for example, would not be able to end the doomed pregnancy.

Rev. Todd Owen Watson, a United Methodist minister, expressed his concerns to Parents Against MS 26:

"The very fact that in the Christian tradition our God is also known as the Creator of Life shows the value of life in our understanding of the universe," Watson wrote. But that includes all life, he said, regardless of age, sex, race, or faith:

"And that is my opposition to proposed Amendment 26 — it values life at conception at the expense of all other life, and makes no allowances for anyone else, under any circumstance, at any time — conceived life is given primacy in every circumstance. It would be nice if the changing of one or two words in a state constitution would solve all of our concerns about life, its sanctity, and its meaning, but this ill written and ill advised amendment might destroy more life than it saves because of its lack of focus and heavy handed impact across all aspects of our daily existence."

Watson pointed out that while there is only one abortion clinic currently operating in Mississippi, there are many families who struggle to have biological children and many women whose lives are threatened by cancer or dangerous pregnancies. "Is this really loving our neighbor as we love ourselves?" he asked.

The views of these and various other people of faith who oppose Initiative 26 prove at least one thing — Initiative 26 is not simply a matter of who is or isn't a "true Christian." People of faith absolutely can, in good conscience, oppose an initiative that would devalue the sanctity of the lives of their mothers, aunts, sisters, and daughters. Faithful Christians who value the sanctity of life can and should oppose Initiative 26.

Candidate criticized for race-based election strategies

Marshand Crisler, the Democratic nominee for Mississippi's Central District Transportation Commissioner, is guilty of exploiting race-based campaign strategies, according to The Beacon — the newspaper of Macon, Miss:

"During a recent campaign visit to Macon, Crisler, the Democratic nominee for Central District Transportation Commissioner, handed out different cards to black and white voters ... Numerous retail outlets in Macon were given a stack of cards for their store counters -- the versions handed out to whites."

The cards appeared very similar, but offered different messages. The card handed out to white voters focused on the economy, jobs, and MDOT. The card handed out to black voters also mentioned the economy and jobs, but spent the second half referencing Crisler's race:

"I will vote to increase minority participation in MDOT contracts. The Central District is now majority Democrat and majority African American. It's simple. If we show up, we win! On November 8th, vote for CHANGE in Central Mississippi by electing a TRUE DEMOCRAT. Marshand Crisler, as our next Transportation Commissioner. Change is coming to central Mississippi. I'm Marshand Crisler, asking for your prayers, support, and your vote on November 8th." (Click here to view the two cards)

Kingfish from the blog Jackson Jambalaya had harsh words for Crisler: "Marshand Crisler ought to be ashamed of himself," Kingfish wrote. "I know his parents and they damn sure didn't raise him to be like this."
Crisler doesn't appear to reference his race or minority specific issues on his official campaign website. That may heighten accusations that his racially tinged messages are specifically delivered only to a limited black audience.

But Crisler's tactics aren't unprecedented. According to Majority in Mississippi, former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Luckett, who lost the party's nomination to Hattiesburg Johnny DuPree in August, employed a similar tactic; he handed out campaign fliers featuring his friend, African American actor Morgan Freeman, to black voters. Luckett is white.

The reaction to Crisler's campaign tactics, are at best, selective. In response to the post on Jambalaya, a commenter by the name of Shadowfax had this to say:

"All of them know how and when to play the card. It's taught and practiced early and often in every corner of the black community. It's literally a way of life and a required tenet of the search for political office among blacks. This is not a racist statement, rather simply a fact."

The idea that "playing the race card" is a "way of life" in the black community is, by definition, at least somewhat racist. In truth, Crisler's cards did nothing to incite racial resentment or tension; it was smart politics. For a group that has historically been disenfranchised to the extent that black voters have, it makes perfect sense to send them a targeted message that is pertinent to their community.

Maybe the real indictment is not that Crisler promised black voters that he would work for their interests. Maybe the real indictment is that white voters in Mississippi needed a different message because it was perceived that they would have been turned off by a message of minority empowerment — especially one coming from a black politician.

As the Debates Show, the Republican Party is a Mess

There was only one clear winner in the GOP presidential debate Tuesday night, but he wasn't even onstage.

At a time when reliable polling firms are reporting troubling numbers for the president, Barack Obama had to be rubbing his hands with glee at the circus that took place during the CNN sponsored debate.

Frontrunner and flavor of the month Herman Cain suffered attacks from all sides immediately after the beginning of the debate. He became extremely testy as his opponents attempted to rip his 9-9-9 flat tax plan to shreds.

Then, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney sparred against Texas governor Rick Perry, who drew Romney's ire by constantly interrupting him.

"I thought Republicans followed the rules," CNN host Anderson Cooper quipped. Soon, Romney was lecturing Perry on how debates were supposed to work. Perry appeared to be in need of anger management sessions.

Meanwhile, Congressman Ron Paul fought to get a word in edgewise,  reaffirming his dedication to remove the U.S. military from abroad. He even tried to defend the Occupy Wall Street protesters after Cain drew heavy applause by blaming the jobless for, well, not having a job.

Paul returned to his regular crazy form when he made known his desire to abolish the income tax and replace it with absolutely nothing.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum angled for the most pious vote, withSantorum bragging about his Catholic credentials. Not to be outdone, Gingrich explained his belief that "you can't have judgment without faith. You can't be trusted with power if you don't pray." Romney, a Mormon, was the only one to point out that our Constitution forbids religious tests for office.

However, Romney and Gingrich had their own contest: the fight to see who would be the most John Kerry-esque flip-flopper of the GOP.  Romney, who is running against "Obamacare," had to fend off criticisms from Gingrich that Obama got his ideas for "Obamacare" from Romney's Massachusetts health plan: "Romneycare." Gingrich, of course, backed down after Romney pointed out that he got his idea for the individual mandate - a key part of Romney and Obama's plans - from a policy that Gingrich himself once supported.

That's because health care reform and the individual mandate itself were once conservative ideas. That was before Obama became president. Now that Obama's president, of course, any idea, even if once a conservative one, is now considered part of a socialist/Marxist takeover scheme and must be denounced at all costs.

In other words, the state of the current GOP presidential field is a mess. The debates merely reflect that. The candidates are trying to figure out what "conservative" and "Republican" mean in the age of Obama. It turns out it's a very confusing amalgamation of competing ideas that are often significantly different from just three years ago.

With no coherent message coming from any of his GOP opponents, President Obama may be able to breathe a little easier - for now.

Clarion-Ledger writer: "Good riddance," liberal media

Andy Taggart, the right-wing voice on the Clarion-Ledger's Red/Blue blog, made his last post on October 11. Citing what he perceives as the "left wing mantra of Gannett at the Clarion-Ledger," Taggart said that working at the Ledger had become unbearable and unbalanced. Specifically, he noted the departure of syndicated writer Sid Salter, who left the paper in February for a job at Mississippi State University:

"When Sid Salter was still at the Clarion-Ledger, I was at least willing to continue to soldier on, because I had the sense that there was one voice of middle-of-the-road values who was pushing back against the left wing mantra of Gannett at the Clarion-Ledger. Now that Sid is gone, the balance is also gone."

The sudden decision to quit left many commenters scratching their heads. Taggart considered a headline so egregiously biased that he immediately made the decision to leave the paper for good. "Now you people have gone over the edge," he said.  The headline in question said, "Republicans kill Obama jobs bill."

Well, they did. The 46 Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously to filibuster the $447 billion jobs plan. They were joined by only two Democrats. In order for the bill to stay afloat, 60 votes would have been required, meaning the 53 Democrats who voted in favor would have needed to be joined by seven Republicans. Instead, the bill received no GOP support at all.

So yes, it is an objective truth that Senate Republicans killed the bill. And the Clarion-Ledger isn't the only one reporting it that way; a Google search for "Republicans kill Obama jobs bill" returns 5,483 news articles. That's a lot of "liberal media.

More to the point: What does Taggart want? He claims that he is the lone remaining conservative voice at the Ledger. Yet instead of staying to defend his turf and fight the supposed left-wing powers that be, he cowardly – dramatically, even – ran once he realized he was ideologically outnumbered. In the process, he abandoned Red/Blue, the blog he shared with left-leaning Jere Nash. It was a blog set up by the Ledger to offer a balance of different viewpoints.

Good riddance, Taggart.