Those who favor Amendment 26, its creators and proponents, oppose abortion in all instances — be it a victim of rape or incest or ones own volition, and state that they do so to protect “life,” which they assert begins at the moment of fertilization. The personhood movement portrays itself and validates its own existence to “protect all unborn children, however created,” but what volume and weight the word “created” carries so unassumingly! The anguish and torment of rape and incest, gilded with a word that gives no evidence of the cruel and inhuman acts encompassed within itself. Amendment 26 disregards the poignant and continual pain of victims of sexual assault by stripping them of their dignity of choice on whether they wish to carry full term or not. If this law passes, the state government will communicate clearly to victims of sexual assault that results in conception, that their anguish is their own — and to seek release from malicious actions committed against them is not only illegal, but to want such a freedom from pain is immoral.
It may be said a pregnancy resulting from such an act as rape or incest could very well go on to “live” and become a functioning member in society, but what of the mother, the rape/incest victim? Because she was the unwilling recipient of such a “personhood” by violent means, the woman must carry to term this “personhood” without the slightest regret or dissent and to act otherwise, since Amendment 26 uses rhetoric equating abortion to immorality; she is a depraved, heartless creature for any hostility she may have toward her and the aggressor’s “personhood.” What are the consequences?  The twofold victimization of these women — not only the powerlessness present at the violent conception, but the disregard and dismissal for their own wellbeing, their own humanity, in the eyes of their fellow statesmen and the law.
However, even if Amendment 26 is passed, there will be women who defy it, who cannot accept the manifestation of their assault or untimely mistake and will seek dangerous and life-threatening personal means to halt their development. Moreover, with the social stigma and shame of being an unwed mother still thriving in Mississippi, the outlaw of all abortive procedures will revert our culture to back-alley abortions and dangerous home remedies. We don’t want to return to the time when women were forced to seek out unsafe measures in order to maintain a peaceful existence in the conservative society of Mississippi, seeking a way out of the shame and ridicule heaped upon unwed women who carry to term. The dignity of choice is in the matter of womanhood — not “personhood.”
Some readers say, “My religion prevents me from agreeing with abortion, so I must vote in favor of this law.” I urge any who find validation in agreeing with this law via religious or spiritual texts, to look also to their own existence as citizens of democracy and to the compassion and rationale our species allows us. That is not to say spirituality is not a valuable source to reference when we build our identities and beliefs, but caution must be exercised when the beliefs that govern our private lives manifest in the public spheres in the form of law. The creators of this law manipulate rhetoric to cloud the judgment of its readers; the term “personhood” is used as a replacement for what they misleadingly assert is a “soul” and propagate this spiritual ideal to support the notion that a “soul” begins existence at the moment of conception and therefore must be protected as a “soul” equates “life” — a notion that cannot be proven beyond the pulpit and therefore must not be allowed to pollute the laws that govern us. “Life” is a vague and unstable word; as with “personhood,” the rhetoric of Amendment 26 is littered with bare words that cannot be solidly defined or proven and therefore must remain far-removed from the law.
Reading the text of Amendment 26, a repressive ideology identical to the principle of “separate but equal” (Plessy v. Ferguson) is pursued; you are a woman, “different,” and you must be governed as such. It is a law targeting a single entity, a single sex, that must be taught “obedience” (Amendment 26) to the government — a law binding the power of 50.7 percent (the percentage of females in Mississippi at the last census) of our state while the remainder retain their sovereignty.
The only equality that could be found to ever render any abortion law equal is if the proposed legislation extended its reach over the entire population rather than solely females. The only equality that could be procured would be to also outlaw the male act that closest mirrors abortion: male masturbation. What is “the moment of conception” (Amendment 26) that the proposed law states but the joining of sperm and an egg? And what is male masturbation but the extermination of a key aspect of such conception?
Why then are women singled out? Because they have the innate misfortune of carrying both the sperm and egg within them until birth while men do not?  If “personhood” were true to its alleged intention to “assure(d) equal rights,” (Amendment 26) would not allow the blatant manipulation of biological differences into laws that legalize gender apartheid. 
No matter your stance on pro-life/pro-choice, we can all agree the abortive procedure is a sorrowful event, no matter if it is undergone because of sexual assault, to stave off the cutting eyes of our conservative society, or because a woman feels she or her conditions are not ready for motherhood; it is an event riddled with questions, both scientific and spiritual, that cannot be answered nor resolved with the passing of a law. To vote “yes” on a law that cannot be substantiated without the use of abstract terms such as “personhood” and “life” and which requires the subjugation and loss of dignity in our female statesmen, is a substantial blow to the equality and supremacy of our political system.
And to those who presumably make up the silent majority of opinions on this matter, do not idly stand by under the guises of “I’ve never been faced directly with the choice” or “I’m a male and therefore have no voice in the matter:” we all must strive for the empathy of equal rights and the protection of such ideals when threatened by such legislation as Amendment 26. As Elie Wiesel, a survivor of the Holocaust and political activist, states justly, “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Joshua Bryant is a senior majoring in English. He can be contacted at
[email protected].