The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood that paves the way for Mississippi to become the second state, following failed votes in 2008 and 2010 in Colorado, to consider the personhood amendment. The amendment would define unborn children as persons under the law starting at the point of conception and would, if upheld, essentially prohibit abortions in the state. The state’s high court tackled a decision Circuit Court Judge Malcolm Harrison issued saying Measure No. 26, the personhood amendment can be placed before voters “and the constitution recognizes the right of citizens to amend their constitution.” His decision came in a case under which opponents of the amendment say the amendment can’t be used to change the Bill of Rights, which bringers of the lawsuit said it would do.
Justice Randy J. Pierce issued the majority opinion in which he wrote: “Nothing in our Constitution as it exists today gives this Court the authority to review the validity of a proposal prior to its enactment, which is exactly what Plaintiffs request this Court to do. This Court is without power to interfere with pre-election proposals, because to do so may place the administration of government at the footstool of the judiciary.” That has the court saying they would not issue a ruling on whether the amendment could be used to change the state’s Bill of Rights until after the vote on the amendment. As Paul Linton, a pro-life attorney who has worked with a number of national pro-life organizations, tells LifeNews.com, that means Mississippi voters could spend significant time and money pursuing the amendment only to see it later shot down in court for unconstitutionally attempting to change the Bill of Rights.
“I thought it was curious, to say the least, that the majority opinion refused to decide whether the “personhood” initiative is an appropriate use of the initiative process under the Mississippi Constitution, given the prohibition in the state constitution against using the initiative to add, modify or repeal any portion of the Bill of Rights,” he said. “The two dissenting judges would have struck the measure from the ballot as an improper “addition” or “modification” to the Bill of Rights.” In part because two judges have already indicated they will strike down the personhood amendment after the vote under a post-vote lawsuit, Linton believes it won’t be upheld even if passed.
MORE
