Easy: An amendment defining personhood at conception.
... you seriously think birth control pills and IVF should be constitutionally banned? Really??
Remember, Mississippi rejected this 60-40. The Catholic Church rejected it. I don't think there's anywhere in the entire Western world this would go over well.
I assumed this was a "you were just elected with 90% of the vote" fantasy scenario.
Then only focus on the first line. You seriously think birth control pills and IVF should be constitutionally banned? Really??
That would depend upon how one defines "conception". Medically, the term refers to fertilization followed by implantation. Hence neither birth control pills not IVF would be banned by the proposed amendment since they both interact with human development before implantation occurs and thus before conception is completed. Granted, some people use it as a shorthand for fertilization, but medically, after conception is the same as after implantation. </jargon>
There was a big public fight between OB-GYNs make when Mississippi was debating the Personhood Amendment in 2011. Some of them argued that conception means implantation, others said it means fertilization. Of course the proposed amendment said fertilization, so it was kind of a moot point, but some pro-life anti-26 doctors didn't like the pro-26 side throwing around the word "conception."
I think the moral of the story is that "conception" isn't a real medical term and just means whatever the agenda of the person saying it wants it to mean.
