Magnolia State Voters Abort Personhood: Is God Next?


by Andy Alexander

Mississippi vs. Personhood

Last week voters in Mississippi failed to come up with enough votes to define a fertilized egg as a person. Unfortunately, this proposed amendment to their state Constitution was a massive fail before the first vote was cast. The problem with this entire notion is that issues such as defining when life begins neither can nor ought to be determined by the democratic method. This begs the question: By which method(s) should these sort of issues be resolved?

The preamble to the Constitution of the State of Mississippi reads:

We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking his blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this constitution.

Although they acknowledge Almighty God in the opening words of their Constitution, the voters and lawmakers of the state of Mississippi apparently failed to invoke His blessing or appealed to His authority on the issue of defining a human being or a “person.” God’s Word is pretty clear on the matter.

God v. Mississippi

One of the passages that defines a pre-born baby was penned by the Biblical author Luke (a medical doctor, by the way):

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. She exclaimed with a loud voice, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child in your womb! And who am I that the mother of my Lord should come and visit me? For the instant the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy (Luke 1:39-44, NET).

So, not only does Doctor Luke twice refer to John as a “baby” even though he is still in the womb of his mother, Elizabeth, he also refers to Jesus as “the child in [Mary’s] womb.” Verse 36 of the same chapter tells us that Elizabeth was in her 6th month of pregnancy when the announcement came. This means that regardless of whether Mary’s visit was immediately following the miraculous conception (Luke implies that it was) or if it was three months later when Elizabeth was about to give birth to John, Mary would have been in the first trimester of her pregnancy and Elizabeth in her third.

Thus, according to the Word of the Almighty God, to whom the State of Mississippi is allegedly grateful and whose blessings they claim to invoke, a fertilized egg/fetus/embryo/zygote/blastula, or whatever you want to call an unborn human being, is defined as a child or baby regardless of what stage of development the baby is in.

What’s really unbelievable is that even those that are supposed to know the voice of God did not appeal to His authority on this issue. That’s right! The Mississippi Catholic bishops, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Methodist church, and the Episcopal Church all refused to back the Mississippi personhood amendment and define a pre-born baby as a person. Apparently, none of those “ministers” from those groups have ever read the above passage from Luke chapter 1. It’s a good thing Planned Parenthood and none of the above “churches” were not around when Mary got pregnant as an unmarried teenage girl, otherwise we ALL might be destined for hell’s flames.

In a related fail . . . I mean . . . story, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a measure in September that will give the people the chance to define marriage as between one man and one woman in the North Carolina Constitution. The problem is that we cannot define marriage. Only God can define marriage, and He already has. The very fact we are having these ridiculous votes goes to show that we have lost it as a nation.

Perhaps next November we can vote on the existence of God, what time the sun should come up, the validity of professional wrestling, the elimination of gravity, and maybe take an exit poll on salvation.

Republic v. Democracy

Sadly, this is the realization of the fears of the Founding Fathers. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison stated:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

He would go on to contrast a democratic system with:

“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

The words of James Madison sound remarkably similar to the words of the U.S. Army Training Manual No. TM 2000-25:


  • A government of the masses.
  • Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
  • Results in mobocracy.
  • Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.
  • Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon d liberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
  • Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.



  • Authority is derived though the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them
  • Attitudes toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and sensible economic procedure.
  • Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard for consequences.
  • A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
  • Avoids dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
  • Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.


The manual, an official government document, also mentioned that a republic is the “standard form of government throughout the world.” Which raises one’s curiosity as to why President George W. Bush said in his 2nd inaugural address that “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

The publishing date for the afore mentioned U.S. Army Training Manual by the way, 1928. Right around the time that the term “democracy” was starting to be thrown around in this country by the Progressive movement as an alternative to the word “socialist.”

It is little wonder why the word “democracy” never appears in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.

Furthermore, the word “democracy” never appears in any of the 50 state constitutions, including Mississippi’s Constitution.

If we continue down the path of democracy most, if not all of the following will happen: Overgrown babies will continue to “occupy” everything but an occupation while pre-born babies will continue to be refused the ability to occupy their mother’s womb and denied the Right to Life. Christians and those that believe in traditional marriage will not be permitted to speak now, but forced to forever hold their peace. The Creator will cease to exist as will the Inalienable Rights that come from Him. The revolutions of the earth around the sun will be sporadic at best. The WWE will become reality TV, literally. The trampoline industry will need a bailout. And Rob Bell and Gandhi will both go to Heaven.

It’s time we repent of our moral inconsistencies and start appealing to the authority of Almighty God as the Founders did instead of the anarchy-bordering, communistic method of democracy. May God have mercy on our baby-murdering souls.

God and Science v. Roe

I do realize that we live in a reality where the Bible would never be permissible as authoritative testimony in a debate on abortion; however, the Word of God does not just come from Special Revelation (i.e. the written or revealed word), but from Natural Revelation. David said it like this: “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).

Paul also uses Natural Revelation when addressing the saints in Rome:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20, ESV).

The Declaration of Independence, the Organic Law, and Foundational Document of the United States of America, also refers to Natural Revelation as well in the form of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Contained within the Laws of Nature are the Laws of Science. Today, we know a great deal more about medical and biological science than we did in 1973 when Roe v. Wade “legalized” abortion, and science is just as much of an authority to which we can appeal as God is.

One would only have to ask the abortionist who reassembles the body of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother to establish whether or not it is a human being. Or, you could ask these people that wrote science text books on the matter:

“Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”–T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”–Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.”–E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig,Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

“Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.” The Biology of Prenatal Development, National Geographic, 2006

It is quite plain to see that God and science, and therefore the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God all agree that a pre-born baby would qualify as a person and posses the Right to Life as noted by the Declaration of Independence, and ought to be protected by the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Roe v. Roe

During the oral arguments for Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart asked of the Roe legal team:

“The basic constitutional question, initially is, whether or not the unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it? That’s critical to this case is it not? If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protections of the 14th amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?”

The pro-abortion attorney for Roe, Sarah Weddington, responded with these words amidst a nervous half laugh: “I would have a very difficult case.”

The way to defeat Roe v. Wade and to abolish human abortion is no secret. The very text of the Roe v. Wade majority decision, penned by Justice Harry Blackmun, contains the key to its own demise:

When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma.  Neither in Texas nor in any other state are all abortions prohibited.  Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists…But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

In other words, the Court recognized that exceptions to legal personhood are illogical and, more importantly, unconstitutional. A person is a person is a person. Either you are a person, or you are not. Either the pre-born child is a person, or he is not. There can be no exceptions to personhood.

Legislative Branch v. Judicial Branch

Statutorily vesting “personhood” at the moment of conception for every human being, without exception, state by state, would directly confront Roe and cause it to collapse upon itself. According to Judie Brown, president of American Life League, “Establishing personhood for the pre-born child is the most fundamental step in reversing the decriminalization of abortion.”

Section 5 of the 14th amendment states: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The only thing that needs to happen to put an end to the greatest human rights violation in the history of the world is for Congress to pass legislation that would define a pre-born baby as a person. That’s it! And with the help of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (i.e. science) it would be a pretty simple process for anyone that can add two and two . . . and get four.

  • Kevin Subra

    Absolutely outstanding, Andy. You have condensed in one article what most Americans do not learn or understand in a lifetime! Your clarity and references illustrate this truth so well. Thank you!

  • Andy Alexander

    Thanks, Kevin. All glory goes to Jesus for the grace that he has allotted me. I hope and pray that this gets out there and helps abolish the greatest injustice and human rights violation in the history of the world.

  • Anonymous

    “The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.” Download the free Personhood Booklet at:

  • Harnessyourhopes

    Why even waste your time on this? What visitor to is going to have an opinion other than this? This is the absolute example of preaching to the choir.

    • Andy Alexander

      Obviously, that is not the case. If you read the article you would see that the very fact that this ballot initiative was even a reality is what is in question here. Those Bible-belt voters in Mississippi that praised and supported this measure apparently did not understand the issues being addressed in this article. Those people in North Carolina that are celebrating the fact that they get to vote to define marriage as being between one man and one woman (mentioned in the article) obviously don’t share my opinion.

      Had you read the article you would see that I am indeed “preaching to the choir”. However, not in the way that you assert. I’m actually telling the choir that they are the ones that need to repent and understand that the democratic method that they praise is the very thing that could destroy them in the end. But I’m guessing that you either did not take the time to read this, or you read it without comprehension. In either case, you really ought to go back and read my words with a more accurate understanding of the message contained therein.

      • Harnessyourhopes

        I read the article. I guess my point was that I believe that 99% of visitors to this site already support the whatever means necessary that I believe you are really espousing. I don’t think ultimately you care how the issue is determined, only that it is determined as God has laid out (insert your own term here). Had the measure passed in Mississippi, I don’t think this article is written. Frankly, this seems to be a way to spin a loss into at least a tie. Maybe that’s too cynical, I probably read too many of these type articles.

        • Andy Alexander

          Your assessment is incorrect. As I mentioned in the article, I have already taken the position on the upcoming North Carolina vote to define marriage as a “fail”. While I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, subjecting that definition to the democratic method is a lose-lose situation. That’s what I’m trying to say. And my aim really was to “preach to the choir” to get them to understand that these things ought not be determined by the democratic method, rather by the appeal to a higher authority.

          I do appreciate your feedback and dialogue. Thank you!

          • Harnessyourhopes

            An elected body’s decision is only the democratic process removed a step and probably more corruptible than a straight vote by the electorate. Either way, it is a vote on a matter than you believe to be already be determined. Any outcome other than the one you hold, is going to be a systemic failure rather than a final resolution of the question. I would also add that if a matter has not been “voted” on by an elected body in 40 years, that may actually be the decision. Many matters are decided by inaction.

          • Andy Alexander

            To reiterate one of my main points in the article, neither Mississippi nor the United States of America is a democracy. It’s not the outcome, it’s the process.

            I agree, inaction is one of the primary problems. And while there has been “pro-life” legislation on a state and national level those laws have not done one single thing to curb the abortion issue. Again, it’s the process. In this case incrementalism. Personhood at the federal level is the solution, as I have laid out.

          • Harnessyourhopes

            My point is a republic is merely a democracy once removed. Putting your faith in the 565 elected members in congress is no different than putting it in the electorate. Ultimately you are not going to accept an outcome other than the one you favor. Your discussion of process is just semantics. If roe had been decided the other way, you wouldn’t be concerned about a personhood vote. If there were 9 conservative members on the court, you would be fine with their decision.

            Finally, my point about inaction isn’t as you understand it. My point is no vote at all might already be the decision. We don’t need a proclamation from on high about every matter deemed important.