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 that was defeated 58%-42%. The most contentious issues on 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.

“Personhood” laws put the health and safety of women at risk by limiting medical care for pregnant women. A “personhood” law would ban health services for women that could endanger a fertilized egg. Here is a list of situations in which a woman needs care that could endanger a fertilized egg:

- Chemotherapy for cancer treatment
- Ectopic pregnancy
- Heart disease
- Autoimmune disorders including HIV

Without access to these services a woman could face irreversible harm, and even death. It seems counterintuitive for a movement that supports “protecting life” to allow a pregnant woman to die, which in turn would cause her pregnancy to end as well. Instead of saving one life, two would be lost under “personhood” in this case. 


Abortion restrictions also carry heavy burdens on healthcare providers. Many providers contend that measures like “personhood” would limit their ability to provide care to pregnant women, delay life-saving care, and put them at risk of criminal charges for simply providing their regular standard of appropriate medical care.

I recently sat in on testimony for the Ohio Heartbeat Bill, legislation that is similar to "personhood" measures in that it drastically limits access to abortion care. Almost all of the healthcare providers present stated that if the heartbeat bill were signed into law, obstetricians and gynecologists would have to leave Ohio. Even students currently in their medical residencies in Ohio are discussing not practicing here because of the proposed law.

The reason why healthcare providers oppose these laws is because it makes it more difficult for them to do their job. In medicine, there is never a clear answer. If a “personhood” law passes and a doctor provides an abortion because they conclude that it is medically necessary, they could be questioned about it later, which in turn could possibly lead to criminal action.

Bills such as personhood not only limit access to abortion, but could also result in less access to other reproductive health services – pap smears, birth control consultations, prenatal care – because the healthcare providers who deliver these services will be few and far between in communities in need. Also, providers might delay life-saving care for fear that providing this care prematurely could results in criminal charges against them.

Medical care during pregnancy is complicated and every situation is different. Therefore, it makes the most sense for medical decisions to be made between a doctor, a women, and her family – not state or federal legislators.

Related resources:
http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Medical_Reasons_for_Abortion
http://healthyfamiliesohio.com/facts.html