Skip to content

Can Personhood Get 86 Percent This Fall?

July 12, 2011

When it comes to social issues, black and white Mississippians generally come together in their voting patterns. Seven years ago, a full 86 percent of the state voted to define marriage as one man and one woman for the state Constitution. The vote received the backing of 89 percent of whites and 77 percent of blacks while 85 percent of whites voted for George W. Bush and 90 percent of blacks backed John Kerry.

Needless to say, there was no racial divide of any significance on this issue. Heck, there wasn’t much of an ideological divide with 72 percent of self-identified liberals supporting the ban. Below is a map outlining support for the ban across the state. It’s obviously all red, meaning every county supported it, with the darker red shades indicating a stronger support for it.

Tunica, where 73 percent voted for the ban, would turn out to be the least supportive of the ban, and the only county in the state where less than three-quarters of the voters supported it.

Full exit polling here

That leads me to the upcoming Personhood amendment ballot initiative where voters will have the opportunity to define life at the moment of conception. Most legislators, except for a few in Jackson or the Delta, identify as pro-life as do the bulk of the voters. And backing of the initiative has been bi-partisan. At a recent debate, Democratic gubernatorial candidates Bill Luckett and Johnny DuPree both said they support the measure. And last year, Speaker Billy McCoy was among those who signed the initiative so it would be placed on the ballot (of course he has appointed chairman who like to hold up or kill pro-life legislation but that is a different story).

Getting 86 percent of people to agree on anything is difficult, but I believe we will see broad support in every county throughout the state for the initiative.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. rubradog permalink
    July 16, 2011 11:30 am

    I have a friend who had a “tubal pregnancy.” She said the doctor could see a fetus with a heartbeat in the tube. He told her there was no way to save that baby and he had to operate on her and remove it or it would rupture and she could bleed to death. Is this amendment going to make that doctor a murderer and the woman he operated on her accomplice?

    • caomhan74 permalink
      August 24, 2011 10:54 am

      yes. this is why religion, particularly fanatical ones claiming ‘absolute truths’ (and claiming poor translations of other translations as such, at that; discounting even the _possibility_ of human error or change in meaning over ~4000 years) should stay out of politics.

  2. Christy permalink
    September 26, 2011 6:48 pm

    rubradog, absolutely not. There was no intent to kill the child. He saved the mother and the baby died. It is a tragic situation for any mother but in the situation of tubal pregnancy and miscarriage there is no deliberate intention to kill a child.

What are you thinking?

Gravatar Logo

Please log in to to post a comment to your blog.

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers

Powered by