UHLA Paragraph 1, Sentence 1:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are the Right to Life, that is, the Right to not have one’s life taken from them. 

DAVID ROGERS' COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 1:
      Recognition of God and that our rights come from God.

What better place to start than with America's great Declaration of Independence.  "Self-Evident" truths are those which all men know in their heart to be true. Among these are the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

All too often you will find the landscape of American politics today painted in perverted twisted shapes similar to some types of modern art.  The images that are often presented show a warped form of reality and show no real resemblance to fundamental principles of liberty. They promote fake issues and motivate people to take a stand on and pursue rabbit holes of logic that lead to nowhere but a dead-end.  The landscape of modern American politics tends to distract from, not represent or argue from the fundamental principles of American liberty.   So in designing the initial wording, my hope was to firmly establish and to point readers back to a main document in American Liberty that promotes the founding fathers' ideals of a God-given of the Right to Life for all.

The only modifications here were to change the word "man" to "person" and "unalienable" to "inalienable" (which is grammatically correct) and then dropping "liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to further expound on and detail the Right to Life.

One main concern that arose after the initial draft was that the term "Right to Life" might be twisted by lawyers and courts to include a right to have the State pay for health care or some other right.  To resolve and to clarify this the following wording was included to define the Right to Life, "that is, the Right to not have one’s life taken from them."

UHLA Paragraph 1, Sentence 2:

Therefore, the government of the state of Mississippi shall recognize and defend the God-given Right to Life of all persons equally in accordance with Section 14 of the State Constitution of 1890.

DAVID ROGERS' COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 2:
      Connecting Personhood to the State's Due Process Clause.
Achieved Goal # 3: 
      Mandate the State Government implement Equal Enforcement.

"Therefore" takes the entire last sentence and announces the main point.   Next, "the government of the state of Mississippi shall" means all parts: legislature, courts, sheriff, county, city, governor, etc --  everyone in any type of government position within the state of Mississippi.  Next, "shall recognize" means in all their actions they must legally respect the Right to Life of all persons.  Next, "and defend" means that the government must proactively defend the Right to Life.  The main venue being through the state legislature who writes the laws and district attorneys who prosecute.  Next, "the God-given Right to Life" is another recognition that our rights are endowed to us from God and not from any man or government. 

EQUAL ENFORCEMENT

Next, "of all persons equally" - THIS IS BIG! - This will force the State of Mississippi to prosecute murder of unborn children using the same murder laws for born persons.  The U.S. Supreme Court had a major issue in Roe v. Wade with the state of Texas walk not matching their talk.  Several Supreme Court Justices asked this question: "If an unborn child is a person then why didn't Texas prosecute abortion as murder under existing state murder laws?"  Even though the attorney for Texas said the state believed and even though he argued that life began at conception and that full protection and personhood should begin at conception -- the state's own limited anti-abortion laws (allowing abortion under some conditions) and also the fact that they did not use standard murder laws to prosecute abortion... all added up to proving to the U.S. Supreme Court that the state of Texas really did not believe an unborn child was a person.

So the key to overturning Roe v. Wade is not just the legal recognition of unborn children as persons but that the state acts in prosecuting abortions as murder in the same manner of a born person.  Also that the state does not allow any circumstances under which an abortion can take place, except to save the life of the mother. 

CRITICAL FLAW DISCOVERED.
A main reason why we have abortion today.

Either ALL abortion is wrong or ALL abortion is right. 

There can be no middle ground, ethically, technically or legally.  Any compromise of the absolute position of not allowing abortion under any circumstances will only prove the position that unborn children are not human beings and open up abortion for any reason at any time until birth.

If a state allows abortion for any circumstance other than  to save the life of the mother, which gets in to weighing equally between the two persons, then the state proves the position that an unborn child is not human and does not have rights and can be killed at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason, and by any means.

In addition for the need of a state to take an absolute position in their laws and constitution, if a state does not act or prosecute abortion as murder, except when saving the life of the mother, then that state is also proving the position by their actions that they do not consider an unborn child to be a human being and a legal person.  So a state's walk must follow their talk.

One of the main reasons why we have abortion legalized through the courts today is that the state of Texas, and most states of that day, did not take an absolute position on abortion in the 1970s thus leading up to the decision in Roe v. Wade.

Think about this.  If a state does not prosecute for the murder of a black man, or a disabled person, then what they are saying is that they are not people or they are 'less than human'.

One of the most heart wrenching arguments for compromise on abortion is that one should at least allow for the rare cases of rape or incest.  Not to diminish the impact to these women's lives, but if ANY circumstance is allowed then ALL abortion must be legal.  One question remains concerning this:  Should a child be killed for the crime of their father?  Obviously the answer is 'no'.

DUE PROCESS, DEATH PENALTY

The Initiative Process cannot change the existing provisions of our state Bill of Rights, which Section 14 is a part of, hence the use of the wording:  "in accordance with Section 14 of the State Constitution of 1890."  Section 14 does provides for the death penalty as a part of 'due process' and reads:

Section 14. Due process.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law."

Also using a 'person' definition (see below) in the Mississippi UHLA would make sure that the due process clause in Section 14 is extended to those outlined in the amendment concerning their Right to Life, including unborn children.  By narrowing the focus of the amendment to Section 14 that does not limit due process but rather broadly incorporates all other due process rights contained in state law and in the state constitution.

UHLA Paragraph 1, Sentence 3:

The word "person" shall apply to all human beings, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, citizenship, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, health, function, or condition of dependency, at all stages of biological development from conception until natural death.

DAVID ROGERS' COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 4:
      Defining Personhood for all.  No Exceptions.

This is the first mention in the Mississippi Constitution of protection for people regardless of race, color, creed, disability, age, or health condition.  Although we may enjoy certain 'federal' legal status and protections of rights, I believe strongly that we, as a people in Mississippi, should govern our own selves well and should institute within our own state government and constitution those provisions we now hold sacred, noble, and true.  Among these sacred truths are that "all people" have a Right to Life regardless of race, national origin, religion, disability, or health condition.  This must include 'all human beings' from our very beginning at conception until natural death. 

Sometime people need to stand up and make a public declaration of fundamental truths and 'enshrine' them into our state constitution.  We do not know what the future will hold.  Racism and prejudice may creep back into our state.  It is important that we make this public declaration now in setting a clear standard so that great travesties of the past will not occur again in our state's future.

I believe strongly in setting the record straight and setting a clear standard using our legislative and constitutional processes.  The people look to our state leaders and those in authority to give societal parameters, to define fundamental basics of good and evil.  So setting the complete "human life" record straight was important to me, not just the recognition of unborn children as persons but the recognition of the Right to Life for all people.  We are all in a struggle for the preservation of our most basic rights, among the highest, the Right to Life.  We are all in this struggle together.  The diminishing of one group of people's Right to Life is a threat to us all.  When the rationale for abortion crept into our culture the same reasoning that breaks the principle of valuing all human life allowed doctors and others to make judgment calls as to whether an older, senior adult or a handicapped person can be killed or allowed to starved to death.  These things are happening today in America - our dirty little secrets.  This is the result of moving away from the principles and sacredness for ALL human life.

It was not long ago in America's history that dark skinned people were considered by our U.S. Supreme Court as not quite human and could be owned like property.  During World War II American citizens of Japanese descent were taken from their homes and placed in concentration camps.  Even up to 1970s dark skinned Americans were looked upon as less than human, somehow retarded, a 'lesser species' of human.

Come on America!  Wake up!  All human beings deserve the absolute protection of life.  Once we diverge from this absolute principle then we create a ever growing culture of death, as seen today, by which those in authority who can choose to end someone's life without due process; where teenagers go on shooting sprees in schools; where abuse of children, women, the elderly, the sick, and disabled are now common; where adults murder each other without considering it to be wrong.  Why?  Because if there is no absolute principle of life anymore then anybody can make up their own rules or change them as they please.

UHLA Paragraph 2, Sentence 1:

No person shall deprive another person of life by assisting or aiding in their suicide.

DAVID ROGERS' COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 5: 
      Permanent Classification of Assisted Suicide as Murder.

Euthanasia is always considered murder and is prosecuted as such. Although Assisted Suicide is already illegal in Mississippi, I felt the needed for it to be "enshrined" in the Constitution.  The wording here clearly defines assisting in a suicide as a criminal act and classifies it as murder by the wording, "deprive another person of life", although it leaves the level or classification of murder up to the state legislature.

UHLA Paragraph 2, Sentence 2: 

No person shall deprive an unborn person of life; provided, however, that nothing in this amendment shall prohibit a law allowing justification to be shown for only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring as long as such law requires every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each. 

DAVID ROGERS' COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 6: 
      Protection of the Life of the Mother.

Although this statement might be hard to read at first it was carefully and specifically worded.  The principles in this statement are already understood under existing court precedents and the medical establishment.  It is worth firmly restating and establishing the current standard in our constitution since sometimes medical and legal standards can change.  This sentence helps the reader understand that saving the life of the mother and the child is always the priority but if the life of the mother is in danger then the unborn child's life can be taken.  This is the weighing of one life against another.  The same Pro-Life principle that argues for the Right to Life of the unborn child also cannot legally force the mother to sacrifice her own life to save her child.  Although such situations are known to be extremely rare, sometimes tough choices like this have to be made.  The Mississippi UHLA fully understands this and is meant to preserve life.  The details of are left up to the state legislature but are under the prescribed guidelines that "every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each."   

UHLA Paragraph 3, Sentence 1:

No designated funds are required to implement this amendment.

DAVID ROGERS' COMMENTARY:
This looks like an odd statement to be thrown in here but it is a required budgetary statement.  Simply put, there are no special funds needed to be set aside in the state budget to specifically carry out this amendment.  The carrying out of this amendment will fall under existing enforcement of murder laws by law enforcement and state prosecutors and their existing budgets.