Question about voting on the personhood amendment

[catholictiger]

ok now I don’t live in mississippi so I won’t vote on this bill. I do have a question about it though. First let me make this clear I am pro life without exception I fight hard and strong for the end of abortion. Second some background on this amendment. Pretty much the state of Mississippi is trying to pass an amendment that will say human life begins at conception, meaning under state law in Mississippi abortion will be illegal. Now there is a big huge problem with this amendment. It is the timing of trying to pass it. It is very unlikely that the supreme court rules in favor of this if it got up all the way to the supreme court. If it did make it up all the way to the USSC then it would be ruled against and it would be that much harder to make abortion illegal. So as much as I agree the letter of the law, I can’t vote yes on this yet because of its high chance of being overturned in the courts.

so my question is if you know pro life legislation will actually hurt the movement more then it will help it would it be ok to vote against it. Even though the Church clearly says you cannot vote pro choice, and you could argue that voting no is voting pro choice?

personally I think no, I don’t think we are obligated to vote for pro life legislation that is poor legislation and will do more harm then good. I also don’t think voting no would be voting pro choice because your vote is more its not time yet then I want there to be abortion.

BTW if we knew that there was a good chance this amendment could overturn RVW then we would be required to vote yes.

Thoughts?

 

[Corki]

I will tell you my understanding based on some other state laws. The idea is to have a law in place if and when RvW (and more importantly Doe v Bolton) is overturned.

The law won’t automatically get challenged. Someone has to have standing in order to mount a challenge. Until there is a case where the state penalizes someone under the law, there isn’t anyone with standing to challenge it.

This is my interpretation (I am not a lawyer) based on discussion from other states’ legislation.

 

[catholictiger]

I will tell you my understanding based on some other state laws. The idea is to have a law in place if and when RvW (and more importantly Doe v Bolton) is overturned.

The law won’t automatically get challenged. Someone has to have standing in order to mount a challenge. Until there is a case where the state penalizes someone under the law, there isn’t anyone with standing to challenge it.

This is my interpretation (I am not a lawyer) based on discussion from other states’ legislation.

many states have this set up, they are called trigger laws, which I think are great ideas, but this isn’t what the state of mississippi has in mind.

I’m not really sure how many states have trigger laws.

Yes a law has to be challenged to overturn RVW but I don’t think we have the make up yet in the USSC so its a little premature for Mississippi to do this IMO