Eli Reshef MD

On November 8, Mississippi voters are likely to pass a constitutional amendment that will grant a fetus the status of a person.  Such “personhood” legislation has failed to acquire traction in elsewhere, yet Mississippi is likely to be the first state in the nation to institute a far-reaching decree that has the potential for grave unintended consequences to the field of reproductive medicine. Granting a status of a person to any human biological entity beyond (and including) a fertilized egg will score a major victory for anti-abortion forces, yet this personhood amendment has split the anti-abortion forces nationally. Traditional leaders of the anti-abortion camp, including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, consider this legislative tactic reckless and likely to fail a constitutional challenge, thus undermining their attempt to reverse Roe v. Wade.

In nature, a minority of fertilized human eggs become babies. The remainder is genetically defective and most are therefore spontaneously miscarried. By the new definition, a miscarriage is essentially an unexplained death of a “person”. Must the state then issue a death certificate, investigate every pregnancy loss, and consider the womb a crime scene or require a coroner’s report? If we bestow a person status on any embryo, must we then transfer any embryo, healthy or not, into the womb during the in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure? Should a laboratory technician be prosecuted for murder if some embryos do not survive laboratory conditions?

The 14^th Amendment instructs us to carry out a census every 10 years. Must we then count all embryo “persons” in frozen storage in IVF labs throughout the U.S. to fulfill this requirement? Regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue, “personhood” legislation is poorly conceived and will have far-reaching negative impact on individual and societal interests. In the 2011 legislative session, local physicians assisted by ASRM, SART, and RESOLVE lobbied hard with the Oklahoma legislature to successfully defeat a “personhood” bill. Ironically, it was probably objections from the anti-abortion lobby that truly helped defeat that bill. Reproductive endocrinologists must actively lobby in their states to defeat “personhood” legislation for the sake of their mission and their patients. One must not rely on the premise that such legislation may fail constitutional muster. Contact your legislature and educate your lawmakers if “personhood” attempts rear their head in your state- reproductive medicine is truly in jeopardy if they succeed!

Raise your hand if you want the state government to decide what birth control method you can use, what type of fertility treatments are available to you, or how to make medical decisions involving a life-threatening pregnancy complication. If your hand is in the air, you are in luck. Senate Bill 1433, “The Personhood Act,” passed out of committee and could become law in Oklahoma. This bill states that life begins at conception, so a single-cell fertilized egg has “all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.”

Personhood USA and its partners in Colorado and Mississippi promote this type of legislation throughout the United States. Voters in both states, including pro-life voters, have rejected it because of the ambiguous language and the many questions it raises—and leaves to future legislatures or courts to answer. Other states have refused to allow such measures to come to a vote.

Pregnancy comes with many hazards to embryos and pregnant women. Some pregnancies implant outside the uterus, can never become viable infants, but can lead to the mother’s death by internal bleeding. Molar pregnancies do not result in live births, but can threaten a woman’s life and health. Rarely a healthy, early pregnancy can be life-threatening to the mother due to a medical condition, and pregnancy termination is recommended to save her life. Some traumatized women choose pregnancy terminations after rape or incest. These are all complex medical decisions that are now made by physicians, women, their families, and their clergy. The Personhood Act would give this decision to state government and courts.

If you believe that state government will make all these decisions better than you and your family, then the Personhood Act should have your full support. If you support limited government, let your senator know.

Dana Stone, M.D.

Dr. Stone is an Oklahoma City obstetrician/gynecologist

Legislation that applies the legal definition of a “person” from the moment of fertilization has been introduced in Oklahoma this year. PersonhoodUSA, an anti-abortion group out of Colorado, promotes these measures in order to outlaw abortion; but voters in other states have already rejected such laws as ambiguous and leading to unintended consequences for families.

HJR 1067 is a ballot initiative that would go before Oklahoma voters in November 2012. It defines a “person” as “every human being from the beginning of biological development of that human being.” Birth control methods and in vitro fertilization (IVF) that “kill a person” are affected. This initiative specifically prohibits termination of pregnancy in case of rape and incest.

SB1433, “The Personhood Act,” expands the definition of an “unborn child” to the moment of conception until birth. This is a bill that could become law without a vote of the people and result in the same restrictions as above.

Personhood legislation has been opposed and soundly defeated in Colorado and even in conservative Mississippi. It has failed to even get on the ballot in other states. Opposition to personhood legislation is also voiced by many anti-abortion organizations. National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic Bishops, have refused to promote it because of their concern that it would undermine their ultimate challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The intended and unintended consequences of such personhood bills are potentially destructive for the following reasons:

• They outlaw the use of certain contraceptives. Birth control pills, intrauterine devices (IUD’s), and the morning after pill work by preventing fertilization from occurring but, theoretically, may occasionally prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. Because personhood groups believe that every stage of development is legally a person from the moment of fertilization, these methods of birth control would not be allowed.
• They severely limit the practice of in-vitro fertilization (IVF). For example, any embryos, including defective ones, may not be discarded. Lack of growth of embryos in the laboratory may be considered murder. Therefore, personhood legislation is inherently anti-reproduction, and anti-family.
• Personhood proposals allow for government interference in very personal healthcare decisions for women and their families. If fully enforced, they would lead to severe legal penalties for intentionally harming a zygote, embryo, or fetus, even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy complications. It would outlaw all elective abortions, forcing pregnant women to give birth against their own judgment, and it would encourage dangerous illegal abortions.
• No exceptions are made for rape and incest.
• They create new definitions that clearly deviate from usual and customary definitions or are just incorrect. For example, the definitions of “Human Being”, “Spontaneous miscarriage”, and “Child” in the currently proposed ballot initiative are expanded or are perverse versions of accepted dictionary or medical definitions.
• Pregnant women will become a separate class, less protected by law than men or non-pregnant women. Government officials might be obliged, pressured, or inspired to investigate or prosecute any miscarriage deemed suspicious. A woman suspected of causing a miscarriage could be subject to criminal prosecution, as could others suspected of helping her.
• They will have absurd unintended consequences. The unborn, including embryos in frozen storage, now “persons,” might be counted in each 10-year census. Will such “children” be allowed as tax exemptions? If the biological parents of a frozen embryo die, will the embryo have full rights of inheritance and thereby reduce the share to any born children?