YOUR OPINION: Letters to the Editor

By NEMS Daily Journal

Only the woman should be involved
I understand that the supporters of Initiative 26 feel they’re speaking for the unborn. There should be an addendum guaranteeing adoptive parents to provide a loving home for the unwanted infant.
Who speaks for the 12 -year-old pregnant with her father’s child, maybe not for the first time? Who speaks for the single mother who is struggling to support the children she already has? For every pregnant woman who doesn’t feel the baby she’s carrying will have a life of minimum quality, there should be an option. This is an issue of such complexity, none should be involved except the pregnant woman. It’s her business and hers alone. The electorate has no reason to know about it, much less control it. Women have always had abortions, and they always will.
I was an elementary school teacher for 40 years and I saw too many uncared-for children. Are you thinking ahead to the kind of life unwanted children will have? After I 26 forces them to be born, then what? They will need more than prayers, more than an Angel Tree, more than second-hand apparel. They will need a loving home. There are 3,600 foster children in our state. Remember that when you vote. If you vote “yes” for I 26, will you step up and see that an unwanted baby is adopted? If not, you have relinquished the right to vote “yes.”
Perhaps you’ve heard stories of extrordinarily gifted people – Beethoven, Churchill – whose mothers wanted to have abortions. These are made-up stories.
I’m sorry the anti-abortion people call themselves Pro-Life thereby causing pro-choice people to sound as if they’re pro-abortion. This is far from accurate. It is possible to be Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
There are people who believe if men and women swapped roles, abortion would have been legal from the beginning. I suppose it would depend on the man.
Please leave reproductive rights with the woman who has them. It should absolutely be her decision and hers alone
Ann Ballard
(Ballardsville)
Tupelo

Lower prices to keep more money at home
While I totally understand the importance of shopping locally, it’s very obvious that stores such as MLM and Reed’s have very high prices. Sure, the clothing quality is great, but with prices as steep as they are, the average consumer is going to choose an online retailer or a national chain where comparable clothing can be purchased for much less.
If Jimmy Long (letter Oct. 28) would lower prices more money might stay here at home.
Jason Varnon
Belden

On unintended consequences and personhood amendment
For all the hyperbole about the possible effects of the Personhood Amendment, one would think this proposal must be hundreds of pages long, with “whereas” and “heretofores” abounding.
In fact, Measure No. 26 is a mere 21 words. It does nothing more than define the word “person” as it appears in Article III of our state constitution. It does not mention birth control, or miscarriages, or even abortion. All it does is define when life begins in accordance with well- established scientific and biological fact, and calls it a person.
The extreme efforts to distort this simple Amendment are illustrated by a recent exchange with a man outside a grocery store. He told us that he would vote for Measure 26 if only it didn’t have all that other stuff in it, you know, about in vitro fertilization, birth control, and so on.
He refused to believe it didn’t have any of that language until a copy of the actual wording was produced and he could read it for himself. Once he saw it, he was finally persuaded. Such is the level of the hype.
The real question presented by the Personhood Amendment is this: Are we going to protect life or destroy it? Do we really believe what the Declaration of Independence so eloquently declares, that “all men are created equal,” and that” they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?”
Tragically, we have for many years alienated that most basic “unalienable” right to life from the most innocent tiny little boys and girls among us, and granted mothers a license to kill their unborn children. It is time we stopped.
Some complain that passing the Personhood Amendment constitutes “government intrusion” into our private lives. Measure 26 is no more government intrusion than the law against killing our born children is government intrusion.
We are all for limited government, but we are not for anarchy. One of the few legitimate purposes of government is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The Personhood Amendment is just such a measure.
The truth is that but for the Supreme Court’s horrific decision in Roe v. Wade, by which the federal government intruded into the laws of almost every state, the Personhood Amendment would not be necessary. So Measure 26 actually reverses the overreaching arc of the federal government via Roe v. Wade and restores the balance between state and federal government.
Personhood is a simple proposition and a modest measure. On November 8, if you want to protect life, and restore states’ rights, vote yes on 26.
Stephen M. Crampton, Esq.
(drafter of the Mississippi Personhood Amendment)
Tupelo