Should the law decide when human life begins?

A 3-day-old person under Mississippi's proposed
amendment to its state constitution.

In the late 1980s and early '90s, I lived around the corner from a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts. For the 7 years that I lived there, I literally could not go out for a quart of milk on a Saturday morning without being followed down the sidewalk by people screaming at me not to kill my baby. There was a dentist's office in the same building as the clinic, and their female patients would end up having to explain to the protesters that they were just there to have their teeth cleaned.

Where is she going with this, you're probably wondering. My point: Unless they're injecting sperm into an egg via intracytoplasmic sperm injection, not even trained physicians are able to pinpoint the moment when an egg has been fertilized. Don't pretend to be able to practice medicine from the sidewalk. Or the courts. Or the legislature.


In November, Mississippi voters will be voting on a proposed amendment to their state constitution, Initiative 26, the "Personhood Amendment," which would redefine personhood to include "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." In conservative, religious Mississippi—the state that currently has the highest teenage birth rate, by the way—this measure is expected to pass.

Even if you oppose abortion, which this amendment is clearly designed to make illegal, there are reasons to oppose this amendment. First of all, it attempts to legislate an answer to a question that properly lies in the realm of religion or philosophy, namely when does human life begin, and thereby violates the separation of church and state. Second, it would mandate an unprecedented level of government intrusion in the private medical and reproductive decisions of women and their families. Third, it would require women to carry to term pregnancies in which severe birth defects or gross fetal abnormalities are discovered in utero.

Sperm being injected into an egg via intracytoplasmic
sperm injection. This would be equivalent to a live
birth in Mississippi under the proposed amendment.
(image by Clinica e centro de pesquisa em reprodução
humana Roger Abdelmassih)

Then there's the host of thorny questions that the vague wording of the amendment raises but does not answer. For instance:

Will hormonal birth control become illegal in Mississippi if the amendment passes? The reason birth control pills are highly effective is because not only do they prevent ovulation, but if ovulation and fertilization should happen to occur, the pills interfere with the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus. If a fertilized egg is a person, failure to implant causes death, making birth control a potential murder weapon.

If hormonal birth control becomes illegal in Mississippi, and women cross state lines to obtain it, will they be prosecuted for possession of a controlled substance?

What happens when a woman miscarries, which happens in an estimated 15% of all conceptions? If every fertilized egg is a person, can the miscarrying woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter, or even murder?

Would embryo deaths have to be investigated by law enforcement?

What happens when the medical needs of the woman conflict with those of the fetus/"person," for example, if she needs chemotherapy, which could potentially harm the fetus? The recent passage in the House of Representatives of H.R. 358, the so-called Let Women Die bill, which would allow hospitals to refuse women lifesaving emergency abortions even if the woman will die without one, makes this more than a mere an academic question for all U.S. women, not just women in Mississippi.

If a fertilized egg is a person, is it eligible for welfare benefits and food stamps? Can the woman bring her e.p.t. stick with the plus sign down to the welfare office to apply?

Would embryos be counted as people for census purposes? How would this affect population counts for the purposes of drawing up legislative districts?

What would happen to leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization treatments? If they're people, they can't be destroyed. If couples don't care for them in perpetuity, can they be charged with child neglect or abandonment? Moreover, many embryos do not survive the implantation procedure, meaning both the patient and her doctor would face legal repercussions for injury causing death.

Would embryos be issued Social Security numbers? If so, how would this affect when one becomes eligible for benefits? Would it still be based on the date one exited the birth canal, or on the date of fertilization or issuance of the number?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. As Michèle Alexandre wrote in the Memphis Commercial Appeal:

Without any scientific foundation to serve as basis for its definition of personhood, the drafters of the amendment seek to relitigate laws that are on the books and to place all women of reproductive age in danger of potential prosecution.

This amendment is without doubt the most antiwoman piece of legislation I've ever seen, breathtaking in its scope. If you know anyone who lives in Mississippi, please urge them to vote against this amendment that claims to be about abortion but is really about government control of women's reproductive organs.

But if you're thinking it can't happen here in non-bible-belt East Coast liberal blue state Rhode Island, think again. We already have several antichoice laws on the books, including ones requiring parental notification for teens and spousal notification for married women (although spousal notification has been found unconstitutional). We also have state legislators who legislate according to the dictates of their church and not the views of their constituents. And RI's "conscientious objection" law means your legal right to the full range of reproductive health care has no bearing at a hospital run by the Catholic Church. Who knows, if Mississippi passes the Personhood Amendment, might Theresa Paiva Weed feel inspired to give a similar amendment a spin here?