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

Arkansas is among several states to face “fetal personhood” amendments in 2012. Personhood Arkansas, an affiliate of Personhood USA, recently submitted amendment language to the state that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception.

“No innocent person shall be denied the right to life,” reads the amendment. “With respect to the right to life, the word ‘person’ shall apply to all human beings, including the unborn, at every stage of their development.”

Though these personhood bills have cropped up across the country, many have failed due to vague language — most recently in Mississippi. Simply defining life from the moment of conception could leave the door open to unintended consequences. In addition to outlawing abortion, say critics, the bills could ban birth control and affect in vitro fertilization and disease research.

Last month, a Nevada judge rewrote his state’s personhood initiative, ruling that it was too vague. The Arkansas group says it has included language intended to specify what, exactly, the bill would affect. According to a press release, the Arkansas Personhood Amendment language “clarifies the pro-life position and the true effect of personhood in that mothers will continue to have access to life saving medical treatments” and specifically states: “This Amendment shall have no effect on medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life.”

“We witnessed the misinformation tactics used by those who would continue the abortion carnage. Personhood Arkansas has submitted language that is concise and effective in our goals, and it addresses important concerns Arkansas voters may have,” said Personhood Arkansas Director Preston Dunn Jr., in a press release.

Nevada law requires that all initiatives be accompanied by an official explanation of their effects, so that voters can make more informed decisions. But the explanation accompanying the Nevada personhood measure only discussed its effects on the legality of abortion and said nothing about the effects it could have on other health-care services.

Critics of personhood measures have long argued that redefining life could have several unintended consequences, potentially affecting cancer and disease research, as well as in vitro fertilization.

Yesterday’s ruling is likely a setback for personhood supporters, many of whom have argued that their measures would not limit women’s access to basic health-care services or birth control and would only ban abortion.

Despite those claims, Nevada District Judge James E. Wilson ordered the Nevada Prolife Coalition, the group sponsoring the amendment, to include the following language in the initiative before it can begin collecting signatures:

The initiative would protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman’s health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will impact some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the “pill;” and to access certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization. The initiative will affect embryonic stem cell research, which offers potential for treating diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and others.

Though many have deemed the personhood movement “extreme,” it’s not just fringe groups that support the measures. Presidential candidates Michele Bachman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have all signed a pledge to support personhood.

The Nevada Prolife Coalition must collect 72,352 valid signatures by June to get the measure on the state’s 2012 ballot.

According to a spokesperson for Personhood’s Florida affiliate, the movement to place a personhood amendment on Florida’s 2014 ballot is currently underway.

Via Talking Points Memo:

“Americans can’t wait,” she wrote. “They need action now to get the economy moving again. The president continues to work hard to turn the economy around. Republicans need to get off the sidelines and join him and stop rooting for the economy’s failure in order to win an election.”

Democrats have been focusing more fire on Mitt Romney lately as it becomes more likely he’ll win the nomination, and Schultz’s op-ed devoted plenty of time to his recent claim in Nevada that that the White House shouldn’t interfere with foreclosures in order to let the market correct itself:

“Indeed, while the president is focused on saving homeowners thousands of dollars each year by helping them refinance their mortgages, Mitt Romney went to Nevada and told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that we should not “try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.” He went on to say that it would be better to have families lose their homes so investors could swoop in, buy foreclosed homes and turn a profit, literally leaving the average American homeowner out in the cold.This should come as no surprise from the candidate who wants to repeal Wall Street reform to allow bankers to write their own rules. Romney wants to give bankers and traders free rein to run over middle-class families again on their way to raking in record-breaking profits.”

Federal policy-makers, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., have blocked President Obama’s Americans Job Act, the president’s signature initiative to ease the country’s unemployment crisis. The administration has said the bill would bring thousands of teaching and infrastructure jobs to Florida.

CNN Money reports:

Now, under proposals being considered by the bank, Bank of America would offer customers new ways to avoid having to pay the fee.

Currently, only customers with certain premium accounts would be exempt from the fee.

Under the new plan, customers would be able to exempt themselves by having their paychecks deposited directly with Bank of America, maintaining minimum balances or by using Bank of America credit cards.

Bank of America’s retrenchment comes the same day that JPMorgan Chase decided not to impose similar fees. Chase’s decision follows a test of the fee it began in two states in February.

Wells Fargo also announced late Friday that it is canceling the debit card fee tests it was planning to introduce in five states. Customers in Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington and Oregon will no longer see a $3 debit card fee that was scheduled for statements beginning on Nov. 15.

The subject of new debit card fees is just one of the issues that has protesters from the Occupy Wall Street movement rallying all over the country — including in Florida.

GOPers in Florida have said that the new regulations from Dodd-Frank are solely to blame for the banks levying these new fees. Senate candidate Adam Hasner and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., have both taken up the new conservative meme claiming that banks were “forced to charge customers new fees due to the negative and costly requirements associated with the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, in particular the ‘Durbin Tax.’” Dodd-Frank legislation was a response to the country’s financial crisis that many economists say was partially caused by the lax regulation of financial institutions.

State Rep. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth, recently filed legislation that that would ban banks from charging fees on debit cards.

Clemens told The Florida Independent he considered the legislation since Bank of America first announced it would be charging fees on debit cards. He said that even though the legislation was not a direct result of the protests, he says his “outrage is similar to the Occupy Wall Street folks.”

“Now that we’ve bought into their promise of free, easy access to our own money,”  he said, “they want to charge us for it.”

Clemes also called claims that financial regulations are to blame for the fees “ridiculous.”

Though personhood supporters argue that they only seek to ban abortion, many opposed to the amendment say it could have dire consequences on both birth control and in vitro fertilization procedures. If human life is defined as beginning from the moment of conception, say critics, then freezing an embryo could technically be considered child abuse.

The Stem Cell Action Coalition worries that Amendment 26 would prevent the pursuit of medical research utilizing human embryonic stem cells.

“Microscopic cells in a lab dish, that by a couples’ decision, will never be implanted in a womb, should not be defined as ‘people’,” said Bernard Siegel, J.D., spokesperson of the Coalition and executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, in a press release. “If Mississippi aspires to become a center for biomedical research and biotechnology, then Initiative 26 surely sends the wrong message to the world.”

Though many criticize embryonic stem cell research for its links to cloning, it serves as an important tool for drug discovery, regenerative medicines and cell therapies for damaged tissues and organs.

Personhood amendments similar to the one in Mississippi, which has been criticized by even staunch pro-life advocates, have cropped up across the country — including in Florida, Ohio and Nevada.

Iowa Republicans have committed to a Jan. 3 caucus date, while New Hampshire has not yet set a date. The two are traditionally the first presidential contests and New Hampshire law requires its primary to fall seven days ahead of any similar contest.

Strawn declined to speculate on what may happen with the presidential nominating schedule, but said “the ball to some degree is in Nevada’s court.”

Matt Strawn

“They have the opportunity to move back just three days which will give New Hampshire that window to have their caucuses on January 10,” Strawn said. “And if we can have a January 3 Iowa Caucus, we can have a January 10 primary, I think that serves both Iowa and New Hampshire well because the top finishers in Iowa then have seven days to really enjoy that traditional bounce coming out of the Hawkeye State.”

Terry Branstad

Branstad said he doesn’t think it’s too much to ask for Nevada to move its date by three days, noting it would still be third in the presidential nominating process without potentially pushing the other contests up further.

“I think there’s a lot of people that don’t want to see the caucuses held during the holidays,” Branstad said.

Regardless of what happens, Strawn said the Iowa Caucuses won’t “want for attention.”

“What I do know is there is still an opportunity to make sure we maintain sanity in the schedule where it is Iowa and New Hampshire,” he said.

Santorum joins former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman in boycotting Nevada, which has set its caucus date for Jan. 14 and essentially blocked New Hampshire from holding a primary date during January 2012 due to a state law that requires NH Secretary of State Bill Gardner from placing his state’s contest seven days ahead of any other. On Friday morning, Huntsman upped his ante, saying that he would also refuse to participate in an upcoming presidential debate in Nevada.

The Iowa caucuses have tentatively been slated for Jan. 3, 2012, but an official determination is expected later this month following a vote of the Republican State Central Committee.

“I will gladly make the pledge, initiated by New Hampshire activists Speaker O’Brien and Senate President Bragdon for the presidential candidates to boycott the Nevada caucus,” Santorum said. “Nevada’s move has potentially forced the other early states to have primaries near Christmas — and that destroys the primary process. I firmly believe that we must protect New Hampshire, and other early primary states and the proven presidential primary process.

“To be clear, I will not campaign in Nevada nor participate in the Nevada caucus if it doesn’t move its primary date.”

Santorum said that such early contests in New Hampshire and Iowa “will reward those like Mitt Romney who prefer to rely on slick TV ads to hide their less-than-conservative records.” The Pennsylvania Republican also added his own prod to the Romney campaign, which has long been rumored to have encouraged Nevada’s move forward in the nomination process. The Romney campaign has remain silent about such charges.

Jesse Benton, campaign chairman for Texas Republican Paul, said that his candidate “embraces New Hampshire’s special place in American politics,” but that the Paul campaign won’t be joining the boycott.

“[T]his talk of boycotts doesn’t serve the electoral process any more than the states’ jockeying for position and primacy,” Benton said. “New Hampshire deserves its rightful place as the first primary in the nation, but we will fight to preserve that place without depriving Nevada or Iowa voters of their say in the 2012 nomination process.”

“As a citizen, I have always supported New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary,” Gingrich said in a prepared statement.

“Now, as a candidate for president, I am committed to competing in and maintaining the first-in-the-nation status of the New Hampshire primary. Therefore, I will not compete in a state which holds its contest inside of one week of New Hampshire. I trust Governors Romney and Perry will join me in protecting the New Hampshire primary and campaigning in New Hampshire towards a January 10th primary contest.”

Earlier Thursday, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman indicated he would not compete in Nevada if it maintained its current caucus date of Jan. 14. Although Huntsman challenged all the 2012 GOP candidates to follow suit, he, like Gingrich, specifically called out frontrunner Mitt Romney — the campaign that is believed to have played a role in Nevada’s decision to set such an early date. Gingrich, however, is the first to single out Rick Perry.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner sounded the “December alarm” earlier this week, indicating that his state would move into 2011 for its primary if Nevada left it no other choice. By state law, the New Hampshire contest must precede any other contest by at least 7 days. Since Iowa has tentatively named Jan. 3 as its caucus date, and New Hampshire is locked into a Tuesday election, there is no wiggle-room left in January for Gardner.

Although the four states sanctioned by the two prominent national political parties to begin the nominating process — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — were scheduled to hold their contests in February, a Florida committee chose to usurp the rules and move its primary to Jan. 31.

Any state in violation of the nominating calendar set forth by the political parties can face sanctions, namely a loss of delegates to the national convention. Because the political parties have not historically followed through with such penalties, however, states have mostly scoffed at the possible consequences.

“I’m extremely pleased to finally have a firm date for a caucus that will greatly improve Nevada’s standing and relevance in terms of national politics,” Tarkanian said. “By establishing this date, we maintain Nevada’s standing as one of the first four ‘carve-out’ states and as the very first in the west.”

The date of Nevada’s caucus and the nationally agreed upon nomination calendar was thrown into turmoil when Florida, in violation of agreed-upon rules, moved its primary to January, causing the four carve-out early states, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada to scramble to find new dates to maintain the agreed-upon order.

“This is absolutely in the best interest of our state,” Tarkanian said. “We are in the process of creating a caucus that will energize Republicans throughout Nevada and the west, and allow us to play a major role in deciding who will carry the fight to unseat Barack Obama and his destructive policies.”

In a piece titled “Florida Republicans for Obama,” The Wall Street Journal comments:

Republicans will have a hard time losing the next Presidential election, but they may be up to the job. Witness the current state GOP rush to jump the early primary queue in a way that could start the voting as early as December.

That may be what happens thanks to the Florida GOP’s decision last week to move its primary to January 31 from March. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina—the four states picked by the Republican National Committee to go first—will in turn likely move their caucus or primary dates to early January, if not earlier, from February. Candidates will have to campaign in a rush through the holidays, when voters are especially busy and least able or inclined to pay attention.

According to the Journal, despite comments on the move by Florida politicians like House speaker Dean Cannon, “the real motivation here may be the traditional desire among party elites to settle the nomination early, lest Republicans fight among themselves for too long. Many party pros have already signed up with one candidate or another, and they dread a drawn-out contest that they think will weaken the eventual nominee.”

Florida State Rep. Seth McKeel (R-Lakeland) writes at Red County that ”there is a lot of unfortunate bickering about [moving the primary,] something that has the potential to place Florida in [its] rightful role as the most important primary state in the union.”

Mckeel adds:

Florida has more electoral votes than any other swing state. Should Iowa, New Hampshire and Missouri trump Florida? I don’t think so. I feel my responsibility is to the citizens of Florida to give them the very best shot at having a REAL impact on deciding who the next President of the United States is.

In another Red County post, Republican National Committeeman Paul Senfit disagrees: ”As was outlined unanimously by all the commentators on Fox News at 6PM – It makes no sense for Florida to move up to January and blow up the Presidential Primary Calendar. They all agree that we will be the first large and diverse state to go and with our full complement of delegates we will be more significant.”

Senfit adds that “if Florida goes as early as is being discussed (January 31), we will have little, if any, impact on the delegate count for any candidate. Further, we will be slapping the RNC in the face after they gave the convention to Florida and we have not given the new rules a chance to see if they work.”