B6
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
TOMORROW’S HOROSCOPE
BY BERNICE BEDE OSOL • NEWSPAPER ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION Scorpio (Oct. 24-Nov. 22) — It might be smart to yield a little on some minor issues in order to avoid locking horns with a family member over a big matter. Sagittarius (Nov. 23-Dec. 21) — Because of your reluctance to be forthright about what is bothering you, many of your companions will find you difficult to understand and tolerate. Loosen up a bit. Capricorn (Dec. 22-Jan. 19) — Frivolous activities that don’t make any kind of contribution to your material or social well-being shouldn’t be given a whole lot of your time. Aquarius (Jan. 20-Feb. 19) — Your self-image and reputation could suffer greatly if you fail to keep your temper in check, especially when you’re around people you like and respect. Control your ire and you control your image. Pisces (Feb. 20-March 20) — If you insist upon dwelling on negatives, you’ll elude all possibility of having any success. It’s important to strive to be a positive thinker as much and as often as you can. Aries (March 21-April 19) — Keep your snoot out of a friend’s business if you see that she or he is unwilling to share something with you. Taurus (April 20-May 20) — You’re in for a big surprise if you think inflexibility will enhance your negotiating skills. All it will do is cause people to turn their backs on you. Gemini (May 21-June 20) — There’s nothing to be gained by spreading yourself too thin where your work is concerned. It will gain you a lot of needless frustration when you can’t complete all that you want to. Cancer (June 21-July 22) — Trying to con a co-worker into doing a job your way will turn into a frustrating experience. If you want things done well, let your colleague call the shots. Leo (July 23-Aug. 22) — Unless you think your way
through every step of the day, your gains will be slimmer than a fashion model. If you do things in a haphazard manner, your fragile arrangements will crumble like a misbegotten cookie. Virgo (Aug. 23-Sept. 22) — You had better stay focused on your endeavors because if you don’t, chances are you
will make a serious mistake that could require a total, and very expensive, makeover. Libra (Sept. 23-Oct. 23) — If you intend to go windowshopping at the mall, you’d be smart to leave your credit cards at home. Your resolve to maintain your budget will be weaker than a wet noodle.
01. Legals
The Vicksburg Post
01. Legals
01. Legals
01. Legals
Definition of Person Initiative #26 ORIGINAL FILING: "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." BALLOT TITLE: Should the term "person" be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the equivalent thereof? BALLOT SUMMARY: Initiative #26 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to define the word "person" or "persons," as those terms are used in Article III of the state constitution, to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof. Argument for the Petition: Brad Prewitt, Yeson26.net The Mississippi Personhood Amendment recognizes in our law that each individual human being has an 'unalienable' right to life from its biological beginning until natural death. When does life begin? Dr. Fritz Baumgartner of UCLA School of Medicine states: "Every human embryologist worldwide states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization." The Bible tells us that God created humans "in his own image," thereby making human life sacred. Finally, the Constitution and the Declaration both ensure the fundamental right to life to all persons, without which all other rights are meaningless. However, current Mississippi law does not protect an unborn child from being destroyed by his or her mother's choice or as part of a scientific experiment, because the unborn child is not legally classified as a "person." In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court noted that if the "personhood (of the preborn) is established, the (abortion rights) case . . . collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically" in the Constitution. But, for the thirty eight years since Roe, the legal rights of personhood have been denied both to babies formed inside the womb and to those outside the womb by way of "cloning" and embryonic stem cell experimentation. By voting "Yes on 26" we can amend our State Constitution and be the first in the nation to protect every human being from the very beginning of life, whether that life begins by natural or artificial means. By recognizing the personhood of our tiniest brothers and sisters, we will ensure that the preborn receive equal protection under the law regardless of their size, location, developmental stage or method of reproduction. Argument against the Petition: Lynn Evans, public health advocate Sometimes an idea that seems promising has disastrous consequences. This is true for the Personhood Amendment. In the 33 years since the first in vitro baby, hundreds of Mississippi couples who just wanted a baby of their own have thanked medical science for in vitro fertilization [IVF]. The treatment requires "harvesting" the mother's eggs, fertilizing the eggs outside the womb, and implanting the best one or two zygotes back into the womb. There, with luck, they will develop into healthy babies. Since more than two eggs are harvested for IVF but only the best two candidates are usually implanted, what happens to the other fertilized eggs if they are defined as people? Can they be frozen, as is usually done? If frozen fertilized embryos are people, can they inherit property? Medicine defines a pregnancy as an implanted egg. If a fertilized egg in a petri dish were to be defined as a person by passage of the Personhood Amendment, it is very likely that IVF would no longer be an option in Mississippi - especially for couples at risk for having a baby with a life-threatening genetic defect who now can choose IVF and have a healthy baby. Not only would Mississippi couples who just want a baby be denied the option of IVF, certain forms of birth control - like IUDs - would be suddenly illegal, and miscarriages could become suspect. Effective treatment of severe preeclampsia, molar gestation, and early ectopic pregnancies would be jeopardized by passage of the Personhood Amendment, threatening women's lives. New stem cell treatments for patients with Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, and cancers like leukemia and choriocarcinoma are also at risk. If it were your friend or family member who needed the best treatment available, would you deny it to them? Vote NO on the Personhood Amendment. Voter Identification Initiative #27 ORIGINAL FILING: (1) (a) Except as provided in subsection (2), A qualified elector who votes in a primary or general election, either in person at the polls or in person in the office of the circuit clerk, shall present a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote. (b) A qualified elector who does not have a government issued photo identification and who cannot afford such identification may obtain a state issued photo identification free of charge from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. The elector must show appropriate identifying documents required by the Mississippi Department of Public Safety as provided by law. (2) (a) An elector living and voting in a state-licensed care facility shall not be required to show a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote. (b) An elector who has a religious objection to being photographed will be allowed to cast an affidavit ballot, and the elector, within five days after the election, shall execute an affidavit in the appropriate circuit clerk's office affirming that the exemption applies. (c) An elector who has a government issued photo identification, but is unable to present that identification when voting, shall file an affidavit ballot, and the elector, within five days after the election, shall present the government issued photo identification to the appropriate circuit clerk. (3) This provision shall not be construed to require photo identification to register to vote. This provision only requires government issued photo identification for casting a ballot. (4) The Legislature shall enact legislation to implement the provisions of this section of the constitution. BALLOT TITLE: Should the Mississippi Constitution be amended to require a person to submit government issued photo identification in order to vote? BALLOT SUMMARY: Initiative #27 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to require voters to submit a government issued photo identification before being allowed to vote; provides that any voter lacking government issued photo identification may obtain photo identification without charge from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety; and exempts certain residents of state-licensed care facilities and religious objectors from being required to show photo identification in order to vote. Argument for the Petition: Joey Fillingane, Initiative Sponsor Why should you vote "Yes" for Voter Identification? Because the right to vote is too important to allow dishonest people to steal elections by voting in the name of other people; often times in the name of dead people or folks who are out of state on Election Day. The integrity of our entire election system is at stake. For too many years, as nearly every other state in the nation has strengthen the protections of their election procedures, Mississippi once again trails behind as one of only a handful of states that does not require any form of photo identification before casting a ballot on election day. In a culture when you are required to show photo ID to fly out of an airport, cash a check or even rent a movie from a video store, surely it make sense to ask citizens to show a form of government-issued photo ID before they vote. Voter ID will not cure all problems with the elections in Mississippi but it will go a very long way to ensuring that dead people do not vote - as has happened in Mississippi within the past few election cycles - and it will ensure that people only get one vote per election. This makes ultimate sense to people of all political backgrounds. The proponents of this initiative do not buy into the argument forwarded by the opponents, which is that this would drive down turnout among Mississippi voters. What it would accomplish, however, is to guarantee that every vote cast is done so legally. Please join the thousands of Mississippians in voting "Yes" for Voter ID and in doing so, helping us clean up Mississippi's election system. Argument against the Petition: Sue Harmon, moveon.org The Voter ID initiative should be decided on the basis of "dollars and sense." Implementing Voter ID amounts to a 21st Century poll tax. Those who do not have the documents required to obtain an ID will have to spend money to get documents such as birth certificates. These documents are not free, so some persons will be forced to "pay to vote." The 14th and 24th amendments prohibit any costs or fees associated with voting. In the 1966 case Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the use of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting in local and state elections. Voter ID laws in other states provide for provisional ballots that require voters without ID on election day to show proof of ID within two days after the election to have their ballots counted. However, the use of such provisional ballots violates the Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act of 2003; that act requires states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures. Finally, Mississippi needs to funnel more money into job training and education; Voter ID should not be at the top of its funding priorities. Confirmed cases of individuals impersonating another voter at the polls in this country are so low that there are no successful studies of the extent of such acts of fraud. Should Mississippi spend money on something that is not an issue? It will be quite expensive for both the state and the citizens affected to implement Voter ID. The Legislative Budget Office estimates that the state's share alone will be $1,499,000 in taxpayer dollars, and additional IDs will need to be issued every year from now on. There is not enough sense in the idea of Voter ID to justify the investment of all those tax dollars. Eminent Domain Initiative #31 ORIGINAL FILING: No property acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain under the laws of the State of Mississippi shall, for a period of ten years after its acquisition, be transferred or any interest therein transferred to any person, non-governmental entity, public-private partnership, corporation, or other business entity with the following exceptions: (1) The above provisions shall not apply to drainage and levee facilities and usage, roads and bridges for public conveyance, flood control projects with a levee component, seawalls, dams, toll roads, public airports, public ports, public harbors, public wayports, common carriers or facilities for public utilities and other entities used in the generation, transmission, storage or distribution of telephone, telecommunication, gas carbon dioxide, electricty, water, sewer, natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons or other utility products. (2) The above provisions shall not apply where the use of eminent domain (a) removes a public nuisance; (b) removes a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use; (c) is used to acquire abondoned property; or (d) eliminates a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition. BALLOT TITLE: Should government be prohibited from taking private property by eminent domain and then transferring it to other persons? BALLOT SUMMARY: Initiative #31 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property by eminent domain and then conveying it to other persons or private businesses for a period of 10 years after acquisition. Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers, and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation, or abandoned property. Argument for the Initiative: David Waide, Initiative Sponsor Eminent domain is the power to take private property for public use. Recently, governments have taken private property and given it to private developers for their own personal gain. Because of this, 43 states have enacted eminent domain reform. Our Legislature tried to do so, but was vetoed. Last year, the people of Mississippi spoke up, clearly and unmistakably. Over 100,000 citizens signed petitions calling for an eminent domain reform initiative to be placed on the 2011 ballot. The initiative follows the action passed by the Legislature but necessarily differs in one respect: it expressly prevents any property taken by eminent domain from being turned over to any private developer for 10 years, which is a strong deterrent. Defending eminent domain cases is expensive and beyond the means of most citizens, while the government uses our tax money to take away our homes and property. People of limited resources are at the greatest risk of becoming victims. Opponents will argue that reforming private property laws will stifle economic development. However, the facts clearly show that this has not been the case in the many other states where reform has been enacted. Though eminent domain appears complicated, the basic question is this: Should a person's house or farm be taken and turned over to a private developer immediately? Private property is an American cornerstone based upon the concept that your home is your castle. It is a basic freedom that must be safeguarded. Last year, Mississippi's hardworking citizens lifted their voices to insist that the power must rest with the people instead of with the rich. This initiative could well be our last chance to protect our property from being taken for private development Make your voice heard. Save our land. Vote Yes for Initiative No. 31 - eminent domain reform. Argument Against the Initiative: Leland Speed, businessman and economic developer Initiative 31 will hurt Mississippi. It will cripple Mississippi's ability to attract goodpaying jobs. It could hinder private landowners' ability to sell their land for industrial development. Please vote no. The U.S. and Mississippi Constitutions currently prohibit government taking property for public use without just compensation. Mississippi law further protects your land rights through a system of checks and balances. In those extremely rare cases of eminent domain for major projects, state agencies, local governments, the Legislature and the Governor all must agree that it is for public use. Additionally, the landowner can always challenge the taking in court. Mississippi has made tremendous strides in creating jobs through major projects such as Nissan, PACCAR, Ingalls Shipyard, Stennis Space Center and Toyota. Without eminent domain, none of these projects would exist. If Initiative 31 passes, it would cripple the state's ability to create good-paying jobs for Mississippians. When nearly 10 percent of Mississippians are in desperate need for a job, we shouldn't adopt policies that would hurt job creation. Despite the rhetoric that Initiative 31 helps Mississippians, it really only hurts the state's ability to create jobs. And it does not even address the most common takings of land: those by the state highway department, local governments, or even utility companies or hospitals for roads, pipelines or buildings. Even worse, Initiative 31 could hinder your ability to sell your land. Because Initiative 31 will prevent industrial development, it will mean that landowners who would like to sell for such a development will not be able to do that and surrounding landowners will lose the increased value of their land that development would cause. Our state constitution already protects landowners. The system has worked for over 100 years. If implemented, Initiative 31 will needlessly and negatively hurt Mississippi families. Please vote no. Publish: 10/18, 10/25, 11/1(3t)