Teddy James

AFA Journal staff writer

January 2012 – On November 8, in what many consider the nation’s most pro-life state, a “personhood” initiative failed. The amendment would have altered the Mississippi state constitution to include protection for any child from the moment of “fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” Mississippi is not the only state where personhood has been defeated at the voting booth. Colorado also rejected a similar measure in 2008 and 2010. 

While the war was fought well by pro-lifers, opponents of personhood won three pivotal battles, resulting in its defeat.

Quickest
Many voters in Colorado and Mississippi first heard about personhood through the misinformation campaign launched by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion services provider. 

Planned Parenthood spread lies about personhood through radio, television, billboards, social networking and word of mouth while personhood volunteers were still gathering signatures to get the measures on the states’ ballots. 

Those who were against personhood used the fact that lies, scare tactics and gossip always travel faster than truth. The result not only made it harder to get the truth to the public, but also made it harder for the electorate to accept the truth when they did hear it. 

Another tool detractors used was the conciseness of their arguments. Opponents claimed personhood would take away birth control, end in vitro fertilization and criminalize miscarriages. Those claims are easy to make. It took much more time and energy to explain why Planned Parenthood’s statements were false. 

Loudest
Opponents to personhood were not only quicker in getting their message to the masses, they were also louder. Despite the promotional effort of AFA and other pro-life groups, pro-aborts were able to infiltrate even churches with their message. 

Pro-abortion groups also hit the mainstream media, which were largely friendly to their position. 

Thomas Peters, a Catholic pro-life advocate, wrote in an article about personhood’s defeat in Mississippi, “We can’t ignore that the pro-abortion side was more effective in getting its message across than the pro-life side was.”

Pat Vaughn, legal counsel for AFA, said, “The opposition to personhood was much louder, in large part, due to the fact the secular media carried their message and falsehoods across the state and the country.”

Most unified
The number of those who called themselves pro-life but refused to support personhood was also a factor in defeat. Some claimed to be pro-life but found exceptions to the bill and publicly opposed it. Opponents were quick to point out that if even those who mark themselves as pro-life could not support it, why should someone who is on the fence?

Some commentators and pundits have said that personhood was not defeated by any pro-choice organization, but simply by the fact that pro-lifers did not stand together. 

Vaughn said the pro-life community in Mississippi had more strength and unity than at any point in the last 15 years. “But some people who always said they were pro-life simply weren’t,” he said. “Personhood forced people to show where they truly stood on the issue of life.”

Moving forward
In a new attempt to protect the unborn, pro-lifers in Mississippi are following the example of comrades in Ohio. State legislatures in both Mississippi and Ohio have been presented “heartbeat” bills. (See below.)

A heartbeat bill, by definition, does not affect in vitro fertilization, cloning or birth control. Therefore, opponents will be forced to invent different tactics to fight this life-saving measure. 

Proponents of a heartbeat bill in Ohio are already speaking out through radio and television interviews in support of their bill. They are already holding press conferences and airing television commercials. One commercial makes the statement that the heartbeat bill will save enough children to fill a school bus every day, over 26,000 annually. 

However, just as organizations and individuals who called themselves pro-life refused to support personhood, several have said they will not support a heartbeat measure. 

Ohio State Senator Peggy Lehner (R), who has spent 40 years fighting abortion in her state, believes the heartbeat bill will end up in the Supreme Court, and she questions if the court is ready for it. She said, “I think it’s an important question to ask because if you throw something at the court before they’re ready for it, you run the risk of Roe v. Wade being reaffirmed once again.”

Other pro-life objectors feel the bill is not strong enough. Johanna Dasteel, senior congressional liaison with the American Life League, said the strategy of the heartbeat bill is flawed because it only protects babies whose heartbeats can be detected instead of all babies. She said, “We diverge from this bill because, while it does point to the heartbeat as an indicator of life, it also provides that it’s a qualifier of being protected and that’s where we can’t support it.”

Supporters have been quick to answer that it is better to save some than none. While the first priority of this bill is to save the lives of preborn children, its secondary goal is developing a dialogue about when human life begins. If the culture can see that a preborn child with a heartbeat is deserving and worthy of protection, it may not be a stretch to extend that protection to the point of fertilization.

“We are the generation that can put an end to genocide in America,” said AFA president Tim Wildmon. “We must not let one defeat stop us. We are the people who can stop the cries of injustice from 53 million babies who have been murdered through abortion since 1973. 

“If not us, no one will. If not now, we never will.”  

A new approach
Proposed legislation in Ohio now working its way toward Gov. John Kasich’s desk will require a doctor to: 1) check for fetal heartbeat prior to performing an abortion; 2) inform the woman if a heartbeat is present; and 3) note it in the woman’s medical record.

A majority of state senators are lined up to vote “yes” on what is being called the Heartbeat Bill. If passed, the bill would ban abortion after the baby’s heartbeat can be detected. The legislation has already passed the Ohio House and Gov. Kasich has pledged to sign it.

Fetal heartbeat can sometimes be detected as early as 18 days after conception. Under the Heartbeat Bill, performing an abortion is a crime if the heartbeat is present, unless the abortion is necessary to protect the life of the mother.