The group’s Amendment 26, which would have defined life as beginning at the moment of conception, was harshly criticized for being broad and vague. Though Personhood leaders claim they only intend to ban abortion, critics have argued that personhood measures could have negative effects on the use of birth control, in vitro fertilization and disease research.

Because the measure is so controversial (even in Mississippi, a state with only one abortion clinic), lawmakers have said that it might stand a better chance in the Legislature. Nearly 60 percent of Mississippi voters voted against the amendment, despite support from Gov. Haley Barbour and Governor-elect Phil Bryant.

In November, Barbour said that the state Legislature would have been a better place for the bill, as lawmakers could have corrected some of the ambiguities “If somebody had offered legislation in the Mississippi Legislature that says life begins at conception, that would pass,” said Barbour. “However, what has been put on the ballot is a little ambiguous.”

Bryant was recently quoted in USA Today as saying he would be “very surprised if a member of the Legislature didn’t introduce some legislation similar to [Amendment 26].”

Personhood USA’s Les Riley says his group plans to work closely with the Legislature, in an attempt to introduce a personhood bill through a different channel. “We’re going to work with the Legislature and reach out to Mississippians,” Riley told USA Today.

Personhood’s Florida affiliate failed to gather enough signatures for placement on the state’s 2010 ballot, but has already begun a new push, aiming for placement on the 2014 ballot.

Late last week, national Democrats announced they would be launching a campaign responding to laws across the country that may decrease access to the polls for many for the 2012 election.

U.S. News reports:

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused Republicans of launching a “full-scale attack on the public’s right to vote.” She said that GOP efforts in states to curb instant voter registration and early voting and require photo identification at the polls to fight alleged fraud could push minorities, especially Hispanics and African-Americans, away from voting. She claimed that repeated investigations into voter fraud have found very little evidence that it occurs.

…

The Republican National Committee rejected the charges, however. Officials said there is evidence of voter fraud. In just one popularized case, for example, they note that ACORN—the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—in 2008 was accused of handling 400,000 fraudulent registrations.

The website, protectingthevote.com, states that “in 2011, a new movement to change the way we vote is under way. Unlike past reforms that sought to expand access to voting, this effort aims to restrict voting purely for partisan gain.”

The website runs through some of the most restrictive new laws in states across the country. The DNC points to laws that “target voter registration drives, cut early voting, repeal election day registration, and create citizen challenges” as the biggest culprits of voter suppression.

The website also has a link to a 73-page report written by the Voting Rights Institute, with help from the DNC. The report singled out Florida as passing some of the most restrictive voting laws, including one law that targets voter-registration drives and another that cuts early voting.

According to the report:

The GOP enacted restrictions on voter registration drives in Florida and Texas, and proposed similar measures in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Mississippi. The new legislation in Florida was by far the GOP’s most extensive effort. In 2010, Republican Governor Rick Scott rode a wave of Tea Party support to victory in the state’s gubernatorial race, joining Republican majorities in the Florida House and Senate. A pinnacle of their collaboration in this year’s legislative session was HB1355, a 158-page omnibus elections overhaul that—in addition to early voting cuts—enacted draconian restrictions on all nongovernmental entities that conduct voter registration.

Under HB1355, any group or individual that conducts voter registration must now (1) register their organization with the Florida Division of Elections prior to conducting registration activities and regularly file onerous reports on all their activities; (2) track and account for voter registration forms using a specially generated number for each document; (3) submit completed voter registration forms to the state within 48 hours (a significant decrease from the previous deadline of 10 days); (4) subject themselves to fines between $50 and $1,000 for registration forms returned to the state after 48 hours; and (5) submit to new enforcement authority from the Florida attorney general.

These restrictions encumber even large and experienced organizations; immediately after HB1355 was passed, the League of Women Voters of Florida suspended its voter registration activities. But these restrictions fall heaviest on small organizations that conduct neighborhood voter registration, lack the capacity to abide by the state’s reporting requirements and tight deadlines, and could be virtually bankrupted under this penalty structure. Already, there are reports of public school teachers who may face huge fines under the new law—all for the supposed offense of helping students register to vote without following each minute requirement of the new law.

Fewer voter registration drives mean fewer voters. But cutting back on voter registration drives does not have the effect of limiting the political participation of all citizens equally. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau demonstrates that African American and Hispanic voters are more than twice as likely to register through voter registration drives as are white voters in Florida.

Democrats have also sought congressional investigations in order to address these laws. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.,requested congressional field hearings into the new laws, asking Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to schedule them. Nelson also sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that the Justice Department launch an investigation into whether the “new state voting laws resulted from collusion or an orchestrated effort to limit voter turnout.”

Florida is currently waiting for a ruling on the most controversial aspects of H.B. 1355 from a court in the District of Columbia.

Photo: Flickr/hjl

Personhood USA co-founder Keith Mason (Photo: personhoodusa.com)

Undaunted by the failure of similar initiatives across the country, Virginia legislator Bob Marshall has introduced a bill that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception.

As the law reads, unborn children at “every stage of development” would enjoy “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the commonwealth, subject only to the laws and constitutions of Virginia and the United States, precedents of the United States Supreme Court, and provisions to the contrary in the statutes of the commonwealth.”

Marshall is known for being outspoken when it comes to abortion, but many pro-lifers find fault with personhood initiatives like his. Critics, including the group National Right to Life, say passage of such a bill could backfire, further strengthening Roe v. Wade.

A similar personhood initiative recently failed in Mississippi, despite a significant amount of support from state leaders — some of whom didn’t necessarily endorse it, but voted for it anyway.

In Georgia, two state lawmakers recently announced their intention to file similar measures, which would grant full individual rights to fertilized without the vague language of Mississippi’s Amendment 26. The leader of Florida’s Personhood affiliate told The Florida Independent that his group would begin a two-year push for a personhood bill in 2012, aiming for ballot placement on Florida’s 2014 ballot.

Herman Cain has announced that he will attend the Republican Party of Sarasota’s “Statesman of the Year” dinner, to honor Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain (Pic by Gage Skidmore, via Flickr)

Earlier this month, Barbour criticized Cain for his failure to “get the facts out” about the sexual harassment allegations him. Though Cain has denied any wrongdoing, he has not gone into details about the payoffs to ex-employees of the National Restaurant Association, of which he was once president.

Though the Association has confirmed that it paid financial settlements to two women who complained of sexual harassment, Cain has repeatedly refused to discuss the specifics of the cases — citing a confidentiality agreement.

“If you have a confidentiality agreement that keeps the public from finding out something that the public is interested in knowing the facts, you ought to go on and get the facts out,” Barbour said during an appearance on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown. “If a week from now, we’ve had one week of ‘the confidentiality agreement is keeping the facts from coming out,’ that’s not in Herman Cain’s interest.”

Though the allegations of sexual harassment have played a large role in Cain’s campaign, they at first didn’t apepar to make a big dent in his polling numbers — which remained high in the week following the accusations. But newly released numbers from a Politico/George Washington University poll show that Cain’s numbers appear to have slid considerably.

Via Politico:

A high-profile press conference held by one accuser, Sharon Bialek, and her attorney Gloria Allred last Monday seems to have been a tipping point.

Among likely Republican voters surveyed Sunday, Nov. 6, Cain led the field with 40 percent. On Monday, he was third with 22 percent. By Wednesday, just 19 percent of those surveyed said they supported Cain for the nomination.

“It does appear that the stories are certainly hurting him,” said Republican pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group, who helped conduct the bipartisan poll. “As this moves forward, I think it does become more and more a deal-breaker.”

The Republican Party of Sarasota dinner is scheduled for Sun., Nov. 27, and will be preceded by a VIP reception. Individual dinner tickets to the event start at $150.

A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Health tells The Florida Independent that budget authority was denied for a competitive grant “awarded to Florida beginning October 2010 for $175,000 yearly.”

The DP10-1017 “Demonstrating the Capacity of Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs to Implement Policy and Environmental Cancer Control Interventions” grant was a “five-year grant built on strengths of existing statewide Cancer Control and Research Advisory Council (C-CRAB) working with four regional cancer collaboratives to reduce the burden of cancer,” according to the Department of Health. The grant did not require any contributions from the state.

The grant was just one of many that has been rejected by the state. This week, health advocates in Broward County expressed their frustration with the millions of dollars Florida has turned away since the passage of the federal health care reform law.

According to a recent report by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Florida is among many states that have “missed opportunities to enact laws and policies that could not only save money and generate revenue, but also save lives.” In the report, Florida was listed as one of the seven states that fell short in all “five priority areas.” Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee are the other states that are also falling short in every category.

Two of the priority areas the report focused on had to do with the funding of prevention and detection programs in the state.

According to a Department of Health spokesperson, the state’s joint advisory councils had recently “completed the revised 2010 Florida Cancer Plan and developed an accompanying Implementation Guide.” The plans would have built “on the cancer councils’ combined agenda of identified priorities” and the rejected grant would have “accelerated prevention and risk reduction policies and efforts.”

The department says the plans for the grant included:

• Assisting Moffitt Cancer Center to convene the four goal committees to implement strategies for cancer control.
• Assessing and implement initiatives to reduce tobacco use statewide.
• Promoting national food guidelines and other measures to reduce obesity in school aged populations.
• Developing and support community health workers to improve access to care for underserved populations.
• Creating a forum to enhance the continuum of care for cancer patients through improved medical record keeping including electronic medical systems.

The Department of Health spokesperson tells the Independent that “the work of these initiatives is being continued by other programs in the Bureau of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, but in a smaller scope.”

On Election Day 2011, when Mississippians voted down the “personhood” amendment that would have criminalized abortion and, potentially, common forms of birth control, the political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) launched the Women Are Watching (WAW) campaign, a social-media project intended to educate and engage Planned Parenthood supporters throughout the country.

According to a press release, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) will run online banner ads highlighting “Champs” and “Chumps” of reproductive rights.

Current “Chumps” featured include GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, as well as U.S. Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa), Allen West (R-Fla.), Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and Todd Akin (R-Mo.). “Champs” include President Obama, U.S. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.); and U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.); and former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack, who is running for Congress as a Democrat.

In an editorial for the Huffington Post published Tuesday, PPFA President Cecil Richards wrote:

Over the past year, we have witnessed the most aggressive legislative attacks on women’s health and rights in a generation. The 2010 elections dramatically changed the U.S. Congress and state legislatures nationwide, leading to a wave of efforts to restrict access to vital women’s health care, including lifesaving cancer screenings and birth control. … [M]ore than 1,000 reproductive health bills have been introduced in legislatures across the country, the majority of which seek to undermine women’s health.

These attacks on women’s health are unacceptable and we’re putting anti-women’s health candidates from both parties on notice. Women Are Watchingwill work to ensure that politicians who play politics with our health are defeated and to support candidates who fight for the care women need to stay healthy.

Planned Parenthood saw victory Tuesday night with Mississippi’s “personhood” rejection and with Democratic victories in Kentucky (Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear was re-elected), Iowa (Democrats retained control of the state Senate) and New Jersey (Democratic control expanded in the state Senate).

However, Virginia is now completely controlled by the Republican Party, which won seats in the already GOP-majority House of Delegates and appears to have tipped the balance of power in the state Senate from Democrat to Republican, with the election of Republican Bryce Reeves over incumbent Sen. R. Edward Houck of District 17. The national anti-abortion-rights group the Susan B. Anthony List claims to have spent $25,000 in radio, TV and mailer ads against Houck’s reelection.

Planned Parenthood is also watching various states in 2012, including:

• Pennsylvania: Bills have been introduced to enforce new regulations on abortion clinics and to require women to receive state-mandated information about abortion.

• Florida: In 2012, Floridians will vote on a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to prohibit public funding of abortions, which is already illegal, but more significantly the bill would “prohibit the State Constitution from being interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution” — thus rolling back a constitutional privacy right in the state constitution that currently provides more protection for women than the U.S. Constitution does. A “personhood” amendment just like Mississippi’s will also be on the ballot.

• Planned Parenthood is also “watching” New Hampshire, which severed a decades-long family-planning contract with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England this year; Ohio, which introduced the controversial “heartbeat bill;” and Texas, which slashed the state’s family-planning budget from $111 million to $38 million and passed a mandatory ultrasound bill (many of the provisions of this law were struck down by a federal judge).

Mississippians will decide today whether or not to approve a so-called “fetal personhood” amendment — a deeply divisive measure that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception.

A new poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, found that support for Amendment 26 stood at 45 percent, while opposition was at 44 percent.

Only hours before the vote, groups continued to come out to either support or oppose the amendment.

Should the measure pass, Mississippi would be the first state to grant an embryo legal rights. With no precedent, it’s unclear exactly what would be affected. Supporters argue they only want to ban abortion (which is already difficult to obtain in Mississippi — the state has only one abortion clinic), but critics say that the bill would also likely affect in vitro fertilization procedures, intra-uterine devices and the birth control pill.

In a release sent out last night, Students for Life touted their firm support of the bill, alongside a list of what they say are “the facts” about its passage. Arguing that “hormonal contraception will not be banned if the Amendment passes,” the group says that only drugs like emergency contraceptives and IUDs would be affected.

Students for Life does, however, note that in vitro fertilization procedures would be impacted by the passage of Amendment 26. “If this amendment passes, it is likely that a majority of IVF practices will be banned,” reads the Students for Life release. “Currently, many IVF practitioners take multiple eggs from a mother, create multiple embryos with the father’s sperm, and then implant 2-3 back into the mother. In the process, they end up freezing unused embryos and ‘discarding’ – throwing away – those embryos deemed to have ‘less than desirable’ qualities deemed by the parents, to include down syndrome, cystic fibrosis and other genetic diseases, or simply for being female.”

Though Students for Life writes that “all pro-lifers are for Personhood,” many anti-abortion organizations adamantly oppose personhood amendments. Groups like National Right to Life argue that, because the bill is so extreme, it will be met with countless lawsuits, all of which could end up strengthening Roe v. Wade in the long run.

Also opposed to the amendment are a growing number of obstetricians and gynecologists, who say passage of the bill could prove medically problematic for women. Yesterday, the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health voiced their opposition to Amendment 26, which they said would take “safe, vital medical care away from women.”

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also sent out a release, urging voters to oppose the amendment, which would have “wide-reaching implications that will impact access to women’s health, including treatment for cancer, infertility treatment, birth control options, and pregnancy termination.”

Personhood USA has worked hard to sway Mississippi voters. Just a day before the big vote, Personhood USA emailed 600,000 voters in the state a link to the controversial film 180, which compares American abortion to the Nazi Holocaust.

Speaking on Meet the Press on Sunday, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman became the first potential GOP presidential nominee to publicly express concerns with the “fetal personhood” amendment that appears on Mississippi’s ballot today.

Though Huntsman spoke about Mississippi’s Amendment 26 in vague terms, he did say he feels that the amendment “goes too far.”

“I think it goes too far,” Huntsman said. “I mean, I’m pro-life and always have been. I have two little adopted girls to prove the point. But I think life begins at conception. And I, you know, have certain caveats or exclusions in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother. But I’ve, I’ve always been — I’ve always been pro-life and proud of my record.”

The personhood amendment, if passed, would define life from the moment of conception — which could not only ban abortion but could have negative effects on in vitro fertilization, intra-uterine devices and birth control.

Though similar initiatives have appeared across the country, including one in Florida, support hasn’t been as strong as in Mississippi. While it has been heavily criticized for its potential ramifications, Amendment 26 has been endorsed by both candidates for governor and attorney general. The state’s current Gov. Haley Barbour voted in favor of the amendment via absentee ballot last Thursday.

Personhood supporters, who have launched similar initiatives in states across the country, want to make abortion illegal, but critics worry they will also jeopardize the legality of the birth control pill, intra-uterine devices and some in-vitro fertilization techniques.

In a statement released today, Laube, a gynecologist/obstetrician who sits on the board of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, says he would “be hard-pressed to help many of [his] patients” should the bill pass.

Laube’s full statement:

I am an obstetrician/gynecologist, and under Amendment 26 in Mississippi, I would be hard-pressed to help many of my patients. Abortion would be a criminal act. Some of the most reliable and effective forms of birth control could be illegal. And my colleagues who specialize in infertility could have fewer legal options to help women having trouble conceiving.

I think of the thousands of women I have treated in the past three decades. So many of them needed care that Amendment 26 would prohibit—I can’t imagine turning my back on any of them.

Giving legal rights to fertilized eggs means taking safe, vital medical care away from women. Amendment 26 would force women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest to stay pregnant, no matter what.

Whether or not they wish to become parents, women sometimes experience severe or life-threatening health problems during pregnancy that can only be treated with abortion. Amendment 26 would deny these patients control over this difficult decision. No need for them to talk with family and clergy about what to do—Amendment 26 would leave them no choice but to put their health and lives at risk.

Amendment 26 could rob women of the birth control pill and the IUD, two contraceptives that have helped my patients become parents when they were ready and raise healthy, thriving families. No one in Mississippi should lose access to the contraceptive that is most effective for them. Everyone deserves the ability to plan when to bring a child into the world.

I urge the citizens of Mississippi to vote no on Amendment 26. Personhood for fertilized eggs is not worth the risk.

Laube is not alone in his criticism of the bill. Though support for Mississippi’s Personhood amendment is strong, so is its opposition.

But even those who find the bill to be problematic aren’t taking a very strong stance against it. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour recently listed his concerns with the amendment, leading many to believe he may be one of the few lawmakers to publicly oppose it. But Barbour ended those rumors on Thursday night, voting in favor of Amendment 26 via absentee ballot.

Supporters of Mississippi’s “personhood” bill have long argued that it would only outlaw abortion, but many critics say that the vague wording of Amendment 26 (which would give fertilized human eggs legal status) would likely outlaw birth control pills. Speaking with NPR’s Diane Rehm yesterday, Personhood spokesperson Walter Hoye stated that if birth control ends the life of a “human being,” it would indeed be impacted by the measure.

When asked if there were any restrictions on birth control included in the amendment, Hoye said “no… well, yes,” but added that some forms of birth control (including the morning-after pill) would be outlawed.

From NPR’s Diane Rehm Show:

Hoye: Any birth control that ends the life of a human being will be impacted by this measure.

Rehm: So that would then include the IUD [intra-uterine device]. What about the birth control pill?

Hoye: If that falls into the same category, yes.

Rehm: So you’re saying that the birth control pill could be considered as taking the life of a human being?

Hoye: I’m saying that once the egg and the oocyte come together and you have that single-celled embryo, at that point you have human life, you’ve got a human being and we’re taking the life of a human being with some forms of birth control and if birth control falls into that category, yes I am.

Hoye, who is the president of the Issues4Life Foundation (a group that has erected anti-abortion billboards aimed specifically at African-Americans) also told Rehm that in vitro fertilization would not be affected by the passage of the bill, despite objections to the contrary.

Later during the show, Suzanne Novak, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, argued that the passage of Amendment 26 would put women at risk for criminal prosecution if they suffered a miscarriage.

“If a woman, let’s say, has exercised too much, or gotten in a car accident, if her fertilized egg is considered a person and, for any reason, she was at fault, she could be prosecuted for initiating that miscarriage,” she said, citing a recent case in Iowa where a woman fell down a flight of stairs while pregnant, and was arrested and threatened with prosecution following a comment she made to medical personnel that led police to believe she had fallen intentionally.