The personhood bill, or Amendment 26, was struck down by Mississippi voters in 2011 due to its confusing language and dangerous probable outcomes.
Anti-abortion groups are now supporting and pushing for a similar personhood amendment, according to Mississippi Business Journal.
The bill strives to explain life begins at conception and argues the term “person” should be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization.
The new initiative will be created within the next two weeks, after which sponsors will have one year to gather enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot. The goal of the personhood campaign is to outlaw abortion by defining a fertilized egg as a person, therefore denoting abortion as murder.
Ignored by the bill’s creators is the stipulation under the amendment, which would outlaw contraceptives and in-vitro methods and create an atmosphere of suspicion around miscarriages.
The apathy concerning women’s health care displayed by these individuals shows. Disregarding my own opinion regarding the issue of abortion, my problem is this: politicians and activists have the tendency to attempt implementing their views by altering definitions in favor of their cause.
The definition of marriage, for example, is being fought for by conservatives to include only the union between a man and a woman.
They avoid touching on the essence of the issue, the rights of humans to be bonded by love and recognized by the state, by using arbitrary definitions to validate their claim. I question the rationality of using these political methods in our increasingly pluralistic world.
Defining persons is impossible and genuinely irrelevant.
Biologically, human life starts at the beginning of conception – that cannot be contended.
What, however, does this have to do with the moral argument?
Difficulties arise when interpreting “human being.”  This term cannot be used, in the moral sense, as a premise for any argument, because that moral obligation is exactly what the activist or politician must establish (and not by simply revising interpretations).
These people must find more effective arguments to progress their political agenda, ones that will not create bigger problems than they solve. When considering “personhood,” I think about not only what makes a living human a person, but also the treatment of all the subjects whom we already consider persons. This is to say, the personhood of the mother and father must be considered. 
I reflect on the personhood of people born into poverty, the personhood of minorities and the systematic oppression that robs them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I know highlighting hypocrisies diverts the issue, but if we cared so much about personhood, discrimination would have already been replaced by equal opportunity.
We would be pouring our money and resources in education, paying teachers competitive wages, providing universal health care and investing in programs that make it possible for people to step out of poverty.
If personhood supporters want to argue the precious nature of personhood, they have greater problems to address, considering how little “personhood” is actually protected, nurtured.   
The Personhood Amendment is flawed with contradiction, directly imposing on the rights of women, institutionally and socially. Women’s own personhood is disregarded when people with government influence promote negative attitudes toward their bodies.
Not only does the bill endanger women’s health care, limiting contraceptive and reproductive options, it encourages social taboo.
By ignoring the real issues all women face regarding sex, whether children are wanted or not, we contribute to a misinformed society and put women at greater risk.
I guess I don’t know when one individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be able to supersede another’s.
Either way, attempting to define persons is the wrong way to approach the issue of abortion.