---
title: "NRLC and Catholic non-support of Mississippi Initiative 26 (personhood)"
description: "Single-organization statement from National Right to Life Committee, November 2011, to Mississippi voters / press. Composite 5/12 — explicit opposition to a tenet. “personhood measure split pro-life groups”"
type: "letter"
letter_id: "PL-2011-002"
date: "2011-11"
letter_type: "Single-organization statement"
lead_org: "National Right to Life Committee"
recipient: "Mississippi voters / press"
topic: "Personhood amendment"
shortfall_type: "explicit_opposition_to_tenet"
composite: 5
verification: "secondary"
signature_rows: 1
primary_url: "https://townhall.com/columnists/baptistpress"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/letters/pl-2011-002.html"
---

# NRLC and Catholic non-support of Mississippi Initiative 26 (personhood)

**Single-organization statement** · November 2011 · Explicit opposition to a tenet · composite 5 / 12 · Secondary coverage only

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Letter ID | PL-2011-002 (formerly L21) |
| Date | November 2011 |
| Lead organization | [National Right to Life Committee](../letters/orgs/o074.md) |
| Recipient | Mississippi voters / press |
| Topic | Personhood amendment |
| Type | Single-organization statement |
| Verification | Secondary coverage only |
| Signature rows | 1 |
| Completeness | Single organization |

## Key language

> “personhood measure split pro-life groups” — National Right to Life Committee, November 2011

## Scorecard

Composite **5 of 12** — explicit opposition to a tenet. Each dimension is scored 0 (none), 1 (implied) or 2 (explicit); the rationale is the editor's one-line reason for every non-zero score. D2 and D4 are the fault line the abolitionist critique cares most about.

| Dimension | Score | Meaning at this score | Rationale |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| D1 Exceptions | 0 | None | — |
| D2 Immunity for the mother (fault line) | 0 | None | — |
| D3 Incrementalism | 1 | By implication — a funding, drug, research, Hyde or Title X letter that takes no abolition position | Preferred incremental route. |
| D4 Opposition to abolition or equal-protection bills (fault line) | 1 | Implied, or support withheld | Withheld support from equal-protection measure. |
| D5 Framing | 1 | Implied | Court-viability pragmatism. |
| D6 Secular framing | 2 | Wholly secular, legal, fiscal, medical or political argument | Strategic framing. |

## Spokesperson

1 signature row · **Single organization.** A single-organization record; the spokesperson row is illustrative, not a signature block.

| # | Name as printed | Title as printed | Organization as printed |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | — | — | [National Right to Life Committee](../letters/orgs/o074.md) |

## Organizations on this letter

1 distinct organization, after normalizing renamed and affiliated entities.

- [National Right to Life Committee](../letters/orgs/o074.md) — Right-to-life group

## Sources

- [townhall.com/columnists/baptistpress](https://townhall.com/columnists/baptistpress) — Secondary coverage only (https://townhall.com/columnists/baptistpress)

## Notes

Primary statements not yet located.

## Editorial note

The rubric records distance from the standard published by Abolitionists Rising, not a moral verdict; every organization scored here regards itself as pro-life. This record is verified from secondary coverage only: the primary text has not yet been located, and its scores rest on language quoted in press coverage. Scores are judgment calls applied consistently by the published rubric.