MSNBC Contributor Compares Miss. Personhood Amendment to Jim Crow-Era Abuses
Appearing on the 11 a.m. Eastern hour of MSNBC Live today, Nation magazine columnist and MSNBC contributor Melissa Harris-Perry cynically invoked the legacy of Jim Crow laws to blast a proposed constitutional amendment in Mississippi that would extend due process protections to unborn children.
"Look, Mississippi has a very long and extremely appalling history of intervening in women's reproductive rights," the Tulane professor complained to anchor Thomas Roberts, noting "the story of Fannie Lou Hamer.... She and many, many other poor African-American women during the era of Jim Crow were given what came to be called 'Mississippi appendectomies,' literally going in either for childbirth or for other minor procedures and having their uteruses removed through hysterectomies that they had not consented to."
"Now this [Initiative 26] is on the other side of that, what's happening now is Mississippi once again making a choice as a state, as a government to intervene in the reproductive life choices of women and of families, in ways that will undoubtedly have dramatic and negative impact on women's health," Harris-Perry argued.
For his part, anchor Thomas Roberts failed to criticize Harris-Perry for invoking the specter of the Jim Crow era, nor for hinting that the measure is being imposed top-down on the electorate, when in fact it goes to the voting booth because, according to Ballotpedia, the measure garnered "106,325 signatures [from registered voters], exceeding the minimum requirement of 89,285 signatures to qualify for the ballot."
In a state that is 37 percent black by population, it's quite likely a significant portion of those signatures were from African-American voters.
Working in another common MSNBC meme -- that conservatives are anti-science -- Harris-Perry argued that Initiative 26 is "scientifically, completely false" since it "declares that a fertilized egg is a person."
Initiative 26 "just asserts something that is medically and scientifically untrue," Harris-Perry groused, confusing the legal question of personhood with the biological fact that a fertilized human egg is, biologically speaking, a living human being, albeit in its earliest developmental stage.
As is standard operating procedure for MSNBC, Roberts failed to bring on a guest to counter Harris-Perry's arguments with a defense of the proposed amendment. What's more, the MSNBC daytime anchor urged viewers to "read more of Melissa's thoughts on this" at the Nation's website as well as to tune in tomorrow when Roberts plans to interview "one of five doctors in Mississippi who performs in vitro fertilization," a practice which could be curtailed in the Magnolia State should the amendment be voted into law on November 8.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What is it with these people?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:01pm.
What is it with these people and their continual need to refer to abortion as a "reproductive" right. Hay, idiot, you CAN'T reproduce by killing your own offspring! That's not reproduction, it's deproduction.
Also, abortion isn't a "life" choice, it's a "death" choice! Why can't you just call it what it is!
Be honest with people. You want the right to kill your own children before they're even born. In most societies throughout most of history, that would have been called "brutal" and "abhorrent." But now you want to call it "reproductive life choices?" There used to be a word for that kind of thought process too, it was called INSANITY!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I think reproductive rights
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:15pm.
I think reproductive rights also includes the right to not reproduce, just as freedom of religion means you have the freedom to not follow a religion, freedom of speech allows you to not have to speak, etc.
Fine, then take the pill
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:07pm.
Women don't want to reproduce, fine, there are many alternatives available. But since when is it a "reproductive" right to kill someone? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can threaten to kill someone, and freedom of reproduction doesn't mean you can kill your own unborn child. So it's not a "reproductive" right, and it never can be. You see, once your pregnant, you've already "reproduced."
It reminds me of a joke I heard as a kid: What's the difference between a light bulb and a pregnant lady? You can unscrew a light bulb.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Therein lies the debate.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:12pm.
Therein lies the debate.
There shouldn't be a debate
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:53pm.
There shouldn't even be a debate. A person's life is supposed to be revered, protected. There is this clause in the Constitution, you see. No one has the right to take the life of another without due process. But, hay, I forgot, that fetus isn't actually a life form, is it? Well, that's what people like you say, anyways. I'm sure that fetus thinks differently. After all, their bodies try to defend itself against invading life forms, like bacteria, do they not? Well, it's kinda hard for something that isn't considered alive to, you know, defend their own, what would you call it, non-life? But, no, they keep trying to survive as if they are, you know, alive! Even when it is a single fertilized cell, before that cell makes it's first division, that child is trying to defend itself from foreign invaders. That should end the debate right there. So why doesn't it? Well, thanks to the abortion lobby, women now think that their own children are foreign invaders, even though the woman's own body thinks differently and tries to protect and nurture that child before it is born.
Think about that for a moment: the woman's own body is trying to protect and nurture that unborn child. The woman's body does that at conception, as soon as that "egg" is "fertilized." Non-fertilized "eggs" are rejected, expelled. Fertilized "eggs" are not. They are protected, nurtured. Shouldn't that tell you something? I mean, really, it's not like a cancer cell, which you body does everything it can to destroy. The body thinks that child is important from the moment that conception occures, the mind does not. You tell me, which one is wrong, the body or the mind?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I think a woman should have a
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:56pm.
I think a woman should have a right to decide what to do.
I wouldn't want my wife to get an abortion. But I want her to have that choice.
Bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:03pm.
What about the father of the baby? If you're looking at it as a choice, why doesn't the father have a say?
Exactly!
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:10pm.
Perfect point! What say you Bal?
Good question. I don't know.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:16pm.
Good question. I don't know.
Baby killer
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:33pm.
Baby killer
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Aw. That's adorable.
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:57pm.
Aw. That's adorable.
Balboa - you scum
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:54pm.
From a reuters news story today.
At the Medical Women's Society abortion clinic Dr Kermit Gosnell has been delivering live babies then murdering them by severing their spinal cords with scissors. Women have also died at this clinic.
This is what you support. Lets hear some more cute remarks to show me what a deplorable excuse of a human being you are. Your momma wasn't pro death like you or you wouldn't be here. You need to counsel some women who have had abortions. I've counseled many and their lives are very much affected by the trauma and after effects of the abortion. When you have spoken to these broken women come back and tell me that you see nothing wrong with murdering babies
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
No, that's really not what I
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:55pm.
No, that's really not what I support, and you know it.
But please, continue with the hysterical rhetoric.
Bal that is exactly what you support
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:00pm.
Time and time again you speak out in favor of abortion and then deny it.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I'm in favor of the option
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:15pm.
I'm in favor of the option being available. That is all.
Which is it?
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:23pm.
Were you in favor of it before you were against it or against it before you were in favor of it? You sound rediculous.
If you want the option then YOU SUPPORT ABORTION.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
_I_ sound "rediculous"?
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:35pm.
_I_ sound "rediculous"?
However you spell it, you're on the immoral side of the issue.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 8:35pm.
You say that it's fine and good for others to have the option to kill children as a matter of choice.
That, hyperbolic as it may seem, includes all the horrific varieties of "live-birth abortions," Bal. Including taking living, breathing newborn babies and severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.
Never mind hacking a child into pieces with a knife so it's easier to remove the parts from his or her mother--if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.
--Mike
Good evening Mike
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 8:54pm.
Nice to hear your voice. These people talk about this horrible crime as though it's no different than spitting out a used piece of gum. There are over 50 million americans dead thanks to the lie that decided Roe vs Wade.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Do you support the option
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:25pm.
to kill a newborn? A day old baby? Where do you draw the line on your options? And again, why doesn't the father have a say? He's financially responsible if the women "chooses" to have the baby. Why can't he prevent her from killing it? Why can't he demand she kill the baby if he doesn't want to pay for it? Why on earth does the woman have the power of life or death?
Convenience
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:17pm.
Hmmm...let's try this: you want life to come about ONLY when it is convenient for those already here.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And that's your entire argument?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:24pm.
And that's your entire argument? A woman should have the right to make that decision? No explanation as to why she should have that right, when no one else does? She just "gets" that right handed to her, and her alone? Her parents don't have the right to make that decision, even if she's a minor. Her husband, or lover, doesn't have the right to make that decision. Her brothers and sisters don't have the right to make that decision. Her friends don't have the right to make that decision, even the GOVERNMENT doesn't have the right to make that decision. No one else in the entire world has that right to make that decision, even though that child's very life will affect all the people around them, including the mother (which is why she's making that decision). That right belongs to her, and her, alone? THAT'S your argument?
Ok, so how about after that child is born. Should "her" right to make that decision to kill her own child end at that point, and, if so, why? I mean, really, you already gave "her" that right, so why take it away?
Here's something you should consider: By Law and By Morals, deciding to kill someone without trial and without just cause isn't a Right, it's a wrong. That applies to every conceivable method of killing imaginable, from murder to manslaughter, from intentional to accidental, expect for Abortion which can only kill the most vulnerable of us all, an unborn child. Why is that? Killing itself has become institutionalized for the most vulnerable of us all, an unborn child. WHY IS THAT?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
She has that right because
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:33pm.
She has that right because it's her body.
But the baby's life isn't hers.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:34pm.
.
her body?
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:36pm.
The baby she is killing is her body?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
It's a right?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:59pm.
The effort to ban abortions is the biggest civil rights case in history. And not just American history, HUMAN HISTORY!
People are being slaughtered not for their race, not for their religion, not for their creed, not for their income, not for their disabilities, but only for their age. It transcends all other forms of civil rights violations imaginable. But, yet, the very violation is being promoted, by far and large by those who pretend to support civil rights, as a civil right in and of itself. Killing children has become a civil right!
After giving civil rights to slaves, after giving civil rights to immigrants, after giving civil rights to worshipers, after giving civil rights to atheists, after giving civil rights to just about everyone for every reason, were did we go wrong in giving women the right to deny the civil rights of their own unborn children in the most horrible way imaginable, by killing them? WHERE DID WE GO WRONG?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
When do civil rights begin?
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:09pm.
When do civil rights begin? When are they granted?
Conception
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:11pm.
Where else?
At conception
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:27pm.
They begin at conception, when life begins. And they were "granted" to us all, a LONG time ago!
At what point would you "grant" someone the title of Human Being and afford them their civil rights? Do we wait until we can actually see them before we call them human?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By the way, Bal.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:00pm.
By the way, Bal, excuses like that has been used before. It's her "body," her "property" so she can do with it as she pleases. Just like the slave holders said about the Blacks they owned. The slaves were property too, remember? Well, hay, guess what? Humans, it turns out, aren't property after all! That unborn child is not the property of a pregnant woman. It is a human being, with it's own civil rights. NO ONE is supposed to be allowed to violate those rights by claiming that a human is just property. We fought a Civil War to end that ideal, that argument, once and for all.
Do we have to fight another one to save our own children? It looks like we do. 30 million dead, in America alone, and counting.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Having a say in what happens
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:08pm.
Having a say in what happens to your body is akin to slavery?
No bal
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:11pm.
Having the power to kill another human being implies the person at risk is in the position of a slave.
Because the baby cant speek
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:18pm.
Means they have no say? Least that is what mordor on the Potomac thinks.
It's NOT their body, Bal!
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:26pm.
It's NOT the mother's body, Bal. It's someone else's. It's the child's body! That's what's being destroyed.
There you go again, stripping away that unborn child's very humanity and, in doing so, denying them their civil rights! WHY do you keep doing that? Don't you believe that an unborn child is human? Or don't you think that they deserve civil rights yet simply because you can't see them?
It IS akin to slavery, bal, for you're denying a human being their rights, just as slavery did for tens of thousands of human beings. Why can't you see that?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
We're talking about two
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:31pm.
We're talking about two different things I think. I'm saying that when a woman is pregnant, she shouldn't be told what she can do with her body, which includes the unborn child.
Like I said, I wouldn't want my wife to get an abortion, or my daughter. But I'm not going to make that decision for everyone and say no one can do it.
We're not talking about two different things.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 12:00am.
We're not talking about two different things, bal. We're talking about two different PEOPLE. That child is NOT a "part" of her body. Period. It is a unique individual, with it's own genetic patterns, just like everyone else. The child can not survive without the help of the mother's body to support it, so it resides within it and takes nourishment from it while it grows. That's the only real difference between you and an unborn child. But that's where you draw the distinction, isn't it? The person only becomes a person once it stops relying upon the body of another, right?
Well, that's not a distinction, bal, that's a denial, a denial of what that child really is, and what it deserves. It's a denial of what WE are. We are all, in one way or another, dependent upon others, upon their very bodies, for our own survival, just like that unborn child is dependent upon its mother. What make you a person and that child something else? Is it a lack of a umbilical cord that grants you your rights?
We're not reptiles, Bal. We don't lay eggs and wonder off, leaving our kids to their own devices. We're mammals. We absolutely, positively, need each other in order to survive. We always have, and we always will. By claiming that an unborn child is just a "part" of the body of a mother, so she is free to do as she pleases with "her" body, is to deny our own humanity, especially the humanity of that unborn child. That's always been a bad idea, Bal. As a matter of fact, it's suicidal, on a global scale. If more and more of us deny our own humanity long enough, as is happening today all around the world, we will, the entire human race, eventually become extinct.
Save the children, save the race. That's how it works, Bal. That's how it's always worked, Bal.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I only hope the politicians who would criminalize abortion
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:44pm.
from the instant of conception will discontinue their past practice of exonerating the mother-to-be with the patronizing nonsense that she is too emotionally traumatized to be held responsible. If it's murder or attempted murder, then she should be sent to prison for a very long time.
Jer
I agree
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:54pm.
I agree, 100 percent. It's the only thing that would work.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
A woman shoud have the right to decide?
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 10:24pm.
So basically you are saying the babies rights end in the birth canal? If they are conceived here in the used to be good 'ol USA they aren't citizens? I like you ok Bal, but your defending the wrong cause. Babies have rights too and murder is NOT a right, PERIOD! Babies are persons! Last I saw murder was a felony.
And you want your wife to have that decision? WTF!!! Like you have NO input about that!!!
Embrace life for ALL Bal! That especially includes our most innocent citizens... CHILDREN! In the womb or out!
Please stop defending this barbaric, evil "procedure" K? You are better than this and you know it.
careful balboa*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 8:09pm.
Your buddy mandrake says bye
I saw that.
Submitted by ant on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:06pm.
Is this another case of a liberal perceiving a difference of opinion as hate?
Not sure ant*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 9:11pm.
But liberals do hate it when someone disagrees with them or presents facts that makes them look like idiots.. Maybe its more SHAME than HATE....LOL
A Woman's Choice
Submitted by wingnut55 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:08pm.
Once a woman has unprotected sex, she has made her choice. As for rape and incest, well, Rowe V. Wade has showed that we can't trust Lawyers to do the right thing when there is an exception. If you remember "Jane Rowe" claimed that she was raped, but there was never a person charged, and later she admitted that she lied. She, also, said that her Lawyer knew it was a lie, and supported it. The Lawyer should have been disbarred, but instead she was praised and lauded for her actions.
not just unprotected...
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:42pm.
ANY SEX has the chance to produce a baby... all it takes is one little swimmer to make it all they way.
and things break and pills get forgotten and i will stop there, but you can get the drift. our bodies are designed to make new little ones, and are pretty resilient.
Drs have said more then once that it cannot happen for a couple and SURPRISE!!
side note: i am going to make some fertility water: the ingredient: water from a high school drinking fountain.
Poor Melissa Hyphenated...
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 1:46pm.
I got Twitter flamed by her & her minions once when I characterized her analysis on something as "vacuous."
The poor dear.
Look, Melissa, you don't know it, but you are playing a part brilliantly. That of the Ivy-degree- clutching-moral-relativist-affirmative-action-liberal-paternalism-plantation product of the Progressive educational system.
I'm betting Herman Cain's personal collection of American history books look NOTHING like the DRIVEL you've been consuming & spewing & dining out on for years.
Might be worth a look, huh, cupcake? Asking around? If there are OTHER texts out there that CHALLENGE that head of mush of yours into some sort of acuity?
And dare I say it: THROW OF THE YOKE OF VICTIMHOOD??????????????????? You poor, precious, baby? Victimized right into clutching your expensive Ivy league degree, victimized right into your lucrative speaking fees, media hits, and publishing credits? Victimized, victimized, victimized?
Hmmm?
jiM crOW wAS
Submitted by Samshile on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:33pm.
the Democrats and the Federal govenment hand in hand in hand. Always the Democrats obstructing black americans anyway they can. Jim Democrows. They argueing amongst themselves whether or not to keep lynchings at the 1948 Dem convention. Ugly Dems and there JIm Crow BS
You've come a long way, baby.
Submitted by ant on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 2:45pm.
I'm sure Margaret Sanger would delight in the fact that a black woman is defending the means and methods put in place by a racist woman hoping to eliminate an "inferior race". Probably not so much that the white middle-class has taken to her "don't re-produce" plan much more so than the poor black community.I guess Sanger didn't account for the Government as baby-daddy scenario but, hey, evil plans don't always go the way you think they will.
fun liberal logic
Submitted by Tjexcite on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:28pm.
Giving a unborn baby the same rights if they where born is the same as taking away rights by rule of law to a whole race based on where their ancestors came from and the color of their skin.
In a way this biased slander
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 3:33pm.
In a way this biased slander of the Miss. bill is correct in that it harkens back to the Jim Crow era. In the Jim Crow era democraps said that Negroes/African Americans were not persons. In the current era the Jim Crow democraps claim that a baby in the womb is not a person and has no right to life. Some things never change.
Ironic, isn't it?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 4:03pm.
Ironic, isn't? So many black women bristle at the very thought that, supposedly, our Founding Fathers considered Blacks as only "three fifths" of a person, yet they consider their own children as zero fifths of a person. In other word, they're not a person at all.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Her sense of "logic"
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 6:32pm.
is just plain sad.
Is there any topic where this woman doesn't inject the "Jim Crow" argument?
You were right Annie Ashe Fields. She is the personification of "vacuous."