Was Barbour Paid Off By The "Abortion Industry?"
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
November 4, 2011 - 7:30am (Print)
Anti-choice activists who support the egg-as-person movement in Mississippi have a new target -- Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. Yesterday, the Republican made news saying he was "concerned" with Initiative 26, which would grant legal rights to fertilized eggs. Now, Prop 26 supporters are accusing Barbour of being wooed by money, not conscience.
Via Huffington Post:
Haley Barbour, the conservative, pro-life governor of Mississippi, surprised and infuriated supporters of the state's anti-abortion "personhood" initiative on Wednesday when he told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that he might be voting against it. The Personhood USA campaign retaliated on Thursday by pointing out that Barbour took campaign contributions from Monsanto and Pfizer -- pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the abortion pill.
"We thought it was really strange that he would oppose this measure, since we have the support of nearly every other politician in the state, both Democrat and Republican. So we did a little digging," Jennifer Mason, spokesperson for Personhood USA, told HuffPost. "We discovered that he has received campaign contributions from the makers of the abortion pill as recently as 2007."
Pfizer makes Misoprostol tablets, one of the two pills taken to end early pregnancy, which would be banned if Mississippi voters pass the personhood amendment at the ballots next week. According to a campaign contributions database, Pfizer contributed $7,000 to Barbour's reelection campaign in 2006 and Monsanto, Pfizer's parent company, contributed $1,000.
Barbour's office did not immediately respond to calls for comment.
Of course, pretty much every politician with any sort of national standing, especially a Republican, has probably received donations from Pfizer. After all, the drug company is highly invested in making sure that it has advocates in federal and state legislatures who will fight against health care reform, drug price controls, and the like.
But that's not going to stop the anti-choice community from making their accusations.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
Barbour voted in favor via absentee according to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index....
" the egg-as-person movement in Mississippi " Excuse me??? Surely you know the difference between an egg and the conception of a new human being. Please study your science.
This is simply bringing the constitution in line with what science already recognizes: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
"The only times we even question whether human beings are persons (or “truly” human) are during exploitation and injustice. During the Holocaust, in support of slavery, and to spread eugenics, for example, we have questioned whether the people exploited or abused are really, truly human. To me, that’s powerful." Ana Banderas http://liveaction.org/blog/is-it-a-person/
AIN’T I A WOMAN? This is what Sojourner Truth asked when she gave her famous speech about the rights of black women.
WELL, AIN’T I A PERSON?
Ryan Bomberger answers this question in this beautiful music video written by a man who was conceived by an act of rape:
http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/portfolio-item/unwanted-a-story-about-choice/
How fortunate his mother recognized his “personhood”!
and the other one, some dreadful woman like him who also pushes the rape agenda, are living proof that rape pregnancies are best terminated as swiftly as possible. There is no good reason in the world why a woman and her family should be forced to contaminate their bloodline with criminal genes. These two rape defenders and apologists have obviously inherited the criminal gene, as they seem to be utterly sociopathic in their unlawful endeavors to violate civil and Constitutional law, and the human and civil rights of ohers, in their thuggish attempts to promote a Culture Of Rape.
I'm beginning to think you're not a person. You never answer any questions put to you. You could be a pro-life spambot.
Maybe you can explain why even though the eagle is no longer an endangered species, its eggs are still federally protected while they’re still in the mother eagle; once they are laid; through the 35-day incubation period and beyond through hatching. In fact, even the nonliving eagle egg shell is protected by the federal law. We're talking a $100,000 fine! Shouldn't a human baby have at least the same protection under the law?
I want to thank you for the links, LisaC. I particularly liked the criticism of Fox news by Mr Peters and his "effective example" for demonstrating the specialness of fertilized ova which is to ask the person you're trying to educate:
“If a human embryo is just a clump of cells would you be willing to eat a hundred embryos if I gave them to you on a spoon?”
According to him, the reason most people would refuse such a rich source of delicious raw protein is that we all intuitively know that those embryos are sub microscopic people and, thus, are part of our human community. Which is odd because this moron does not seem aware that a hundred fertilized human ova would be invisible to the naked eye and that anyone with the common sense God gave a mashed potato would run like hell from participation in what he is calling a 'community' .
The 'pro-life' movement seems to think that if they could just express the humanity of 'the unborn' in sufficiently emotionally loaded terms then women would be willing to have 15 children and devote their short lives to supporting them with wages from Burger King.
I want to thank you for the links, LisaC. I particularly liked the criticism of Fox news by Mr Peters and his "effective example" for demonstrating the specialness of fertilized ova which is to ask the person you're trying to educate:
"On a spoon, no. But hard-boiled, and served with orange juice and a side of French toast... you're on!"
So using the common parlance of fertilized egg instead of the scientifically correct term zygote is wrong, but using the scientifically correct term fetus instead of the common parlance 'baby' is ALSO wrong? These people argue out of both sides of their mouths, don't they?
The fertilized egg/zygote contains the DNA 'recipe' enabling the embryo to develop into a blastocyst, invade the uterus, grow new blood vessels in the woman's belly to feed itself, become an embryoblast, highjack the woman's thyroid gland and start jacking her blood pressure sky high, begin the placenta and amniotic sac, and then FINALLY begin differentiating at about week three to create the very first cells of what will EVENTUALLY separate into the umbilical cord and eventual 'human being'. Assuming the recipe wasn't garbled in the process of DNA recombination, of course, and is not instead a moral pregnancy, and that the placenta doesn't fail and detach, and that the woman has enough nutrition in her bloodstream so the parasitic growth can continue.
