Editor’s Note: This letter was written in response to Jay Ballard’s and Joshua Bryant’s articles about Amendment 26 in the Oct. 4 issue of The Reflector.
In the past few weeks, the issue of Amendment 26, the person-hood initiative, has come to light on campus and sparked debate between those who are passionate about both sides of the issue. We have seen a protest against it on the Drill Field, read pros and cons about it in The Reflector and heard personal stories. Unfortunately, the issue is dwindling to an over-simplified argument of life vs. choice. If you’re pro-life, vote “yes” to save lives; you’re immoral if you’re not pro-life. Pro-choice vote “no,” that women should be able to chose what happens to their bodies and not be.
Such grandiose rhetoric ignores the real issue taken by many of those, from both sides, who are against 26. Their issues are often overlooked because of this simplified breakdown of what we’re voting on. This is not simply an abortion issue; it’s also about women’s health. It may have been intended to just be about abortion, but the broad and vague wording of 26 leaves far too many legal questions on the table that many people don’t know about.
Words: we use them every day. Words can be spun to win arguments, win votes, tell someone you love them or demonize someone. However, we don’t often think of the legal implications of words. The potential ramifications of 26 are frightening to me. There is no exception written for cases of incest, rape or molestation. There is the potential many medical options would be off the table for women, such as birth control pills that thin the lining of the uterus. Many have spoken out the intent of 26 was not to interfere with a woman’s health care; however, the potential is there because of the words used in this Amendment.
What seems to be getting lost is that regardless of the author’s intent, what advocacy groups say or what friends think it means, it will not be up to them. In the end, the courts will decide what it means. When it comes to legalese, words and intent can be spun many different ways. I may not be a woman, but I do not want a woman’s healthcare to be decided by a court.
One example I can give about the legal implications of wording in Mississippi is about firearms. The statute for licensed concealed carry in Mississippi has the words, “concealed in whole or in part.” We can give many interpretations of this; however, Chief Justice Roy Lee wrote an opinion once, “… To my amazement, I discovered that carrying a concealed weapon in whole or in part even meant that a revolver carried in a holster on a man’s hip was a partially concealed weapon … that covering a weapon with feet, hands or clothing meant that the weapon was concealed under the interpretation of the statute. Conceivably, carrying a revolver suspended from the neck by a leather throng could be partially concealing it.” (L.M. Jr. v State, 1992)
I put forth this example because, in the language of legalese, words mean everything. Two simple words “in part” were so vague even a legal professional was surprised. Imagine what could happen because of Amendment 26.
As a male, 26 would have no direct impact on my healthcare at all. That doesn’t mean this issue doesn’t concern me. If 26 had been in place a few decades ago, I might not be alive. My mother suffered from severe menstrual pain. The pain was so awful she could not attend school because she was unable to walk. Because of the pain she was in, when she was 16, she was given a choice: Live in pain, take medication to balance her hormones or get a hysterectomy.
Fortunately, she had the option to take medication, which improved her quality of life and later led to my birth. If 26 had been in place then and the pills she needed been illegal, I might not be alive. For every soap box advocates stand on, they need to stop preaching, stop being closed-minded and look at the serious potential problems. I may not have been aborted, but is the possibility I may not have been born any less important?
Because of the words used, we simply do not know what the future may hold for women’s health care in Mississippi. This issue goes far beyond the rhetoric. It’s easy to pick a side when the choices are over-simplified to life and choice; however, when gray areas come into play, it isn’t so simple anymore. The intent of words can be argued until both sides are blue in the face; unfortunately, if we leave it up to the courts, no one may get his way at all. I cannot speak for everyone, but it scares the hell out of me a court may decide what happens to a woman’s health care.