| Looks like Rick Jore et al's ill-considered CI-100 - granting "personhood" on zygotes from conception - isn't getting much help. A Great Falls Tribune story reports that Montana Catholics are "disallowing support for CI-100 in our parishes and church sponsored organization, be it through endorsement, financial support, signature gathering, or distribution of promotional materials."
Why?
"It defines person without any exceptions and it affects several different parts of our state statutes," [Moe] Wosepka said. "Since it affects such a wide range of laws with very little definition, I just don't think it would ever stand up (in court)."
Some possible effects of such a bill becoming law were already mulled here:
Bestowing the rights of citizenship onto a fetus is just plain wrong. As a spokesman from Planned Parenthood said, as quoted in the article, "the measure threatens the health of pregnant women by giving fetuses rights that supersede those of the expectant mother." That's an understatement. Imagine if you will the necessary actions the state would need to take to ensure that every fetus is protected by the law. Would you be required to register your pregnancy? What happens if you miscarry? What happens if you cross state lines to get an abortion, and return? Would the state have the right to try you for murder? Forget about abortions in the case of incest or rape.
Would zygotes be eligible for Social Security cards? Could they be considered tax write-offs? Can a zygote sue for wrongful imprisonment if its mother is in jail? Or claim that its habeas corpus rights are being violated if the mother is held, and it's not given a hearing in a timely manner?
Obviously CI-100 would be a disaster, legally.
However, Constitution Party chairman, Jonathon Martin, disagrees. He claims "the measure was carefully crafted with the help of the Thomas More Law Center." Really?
Of course, given that the Thomas More Law Center is one of the foremost legal groups looking to implement an American theocracy - it has supported just about every high-profile legal issue looking to wed government to religion - maybe that's not so far from the truth. Maybe these folks want to implement laws that force the government to intrude into the daily lives of citizens, measuring them against a strict interpretation of morality (presumably Martin's and Jore's, not yours), and taking criminal action against those that fail. |
