This is the first post in a three-part series on some of the most contentious aspects of proposed “personhood” laws. I’ll be focusing on the impact that these measures would have on birth control, in vitro fertilization and medical emergencies during pregnancy.

The Downfall of “personhood” – BC, IVF and medical emergencies during pregnancy

There is a national movement to adopt state law or amend state constitutions to define a person as a fertilized egg. This movement is often referred to simply as “personhood.” This month Mississippians voted on a “personhood” ballot initiative (Proposition 26) that was defeated 58-42. The most contentious issues with the Mississippi “personhood” campaign related to the proposed law’s impact on birth control, in vitro fertilization, and medical emergencies during pregnancy. Below is an in-depth analysis of “personhood” in Mississippi and birth control.

Would a “personhood” law ban birth control?

It all depends on how you define pregnancy and birth control. Medical professionals define pregnancy as when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall. Those that believe life begins at fertilization disagree with this definition. In their opinion, pregnancy begins at fertilization.



This March of Dimes video explains and visually presents all of the processes mentioned above.

Hormonal birth control – the shot, patch, pill, ring and IUD - prevent pregnancy through hormones that change the woman’s reproductive system, including:

• Preventing the ovaries from releasing an egg, preventing ovulation
• Thickening cervical mucus, preventing sperm from entering the uterus
• Thinning the walls of the uterus, decreasing the ability of a fertilized egg to implant

Source. 

Here is a great video that highlights the changes to the woman’s body when using birth control:



Everyone agrees that preventing ovulation and preventing sperm from passing the cervix are contraceptive, but there is disagreement about changes to the uterus. If changing the uterus prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, than those who define life/pregnancy at fertilization consider this abortion. On the other hand, if you believe pregnancy begins at implantation, than this is not abortion but contraception. The latter is the opinion held by medical professionals.

Personhood fails to change opinions on birth control

The personhood campaign combined a lack of knowledge on reproductive biology with public abortion stigma to mislead voters. The campaign claimed it would only ban abortion, and if it were to ban birth control methods it would be because these methods were found to actually cause abortion (by their definition, NOT the definition used by medical professionals). Therefore, anti-abortion Mississippi voters were assured the law would only ban abortion – not genuine birth control.


Yes on 26 campaign ad

This is where Mississippians for Health Families, the No on 26 Campaign, stepped in. The campaign educated voters about how birth control works, and why it could be banned under personhood (because it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting by thinning the uterine wall). When voters were educated about the extreme nature of personhood, many changed their vote to “no.” The ability to change the minds of voters using accurate, no-spin medical information reflects a critical failing of the personhood campaign – i.e., its inability to shift the public dialogue and attitudes on birth control given its penchant for misinformation and outright propaganda.

The goal of personhood campaigns is more than to legally define a fertilized egg as a person, but to also ultimately change public opinion on birth control. The hope of the Prop 26 supporters was to stigmatize birth control by arguing that the most common forms cause abortion, based on their definitions (again, not the definition used by medical professionals). The result of the Mississippi election showed that even people in arguably the most conservative state in the U.S. do support birth control. Even after voters were informed that birth control can prevention implantation of a fertilized, most were still supportive of birth control.

While anti-choice activists have been successful in implementing a slew of anti-choice laws this past year, this election cycle reminded them of their limits. Now the question is – how can our movement take what was learned from this campaign to further promote policies that in turn promote reproductive justice?

Related Links:
• http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html
• http://personhoodcolorado.com/birth-control-talking-points
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy