According to their website, which may have been edited for grammatical correctness by an embryo,
"The Primary Mission of Personhood USA is to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child. We serve by starting / coordinating efforts to establish legal "personhood" for pre-born children through peaceful activism, legislative efforts and ballot-access petition initiatives.
Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.
When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This terrifies the pro-abortion foes!
They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do!
This then also begs the question, is every human being a person?
This would all be rather humorous if it weren't being seriously considered by the voters in numerous states. This November, voters in Mississippi will decide on a ballot measure that defines the term "person" in the State Constitution to include fertilized human eggs and would grant them all the rights and protections of other persons. This would not only outlaw abortion in the state, including rape and incest cases, but would also outlaw any form of contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from developing, such as IUDs and birth control pills.
There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity.
If you look up the word "person" in your average dictionary (we'll use Webster's), you'll find something like this: "Person n. A human being." http://www.personhoodusa.com
Similarly, fertility clinics would be closed, and doctors could be prosecuted for providing medical care to a pregnant woman if it endangered the life of her unborn child. Indeed, it would be illegal to terminate a pregnancy to save a woman's life if the "Personhood" Initiative passes, as an unborn baby would have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.
If all of this seems too much like Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale for comfort, it's because it is. In that book of a dystopian future, women were hardly more than receptacles for growing babies, which were a valued resource in society. Women had no autonomy over their own reproductive decisions and were punished for interfering with their intended purpose of being baby incubators. Perhaps the women of Mississippi should read the book before they go out to vote in November, that is, if they aren't already ordered to be on bed rest to make sure they don't jeopardize any preborn persons they might be carrying.
