| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
Barack Obama  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.
|
|
Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:44:44 AM MST
|
Looking over the Missoulian's list of upcoming legislative hearings -- and there are a lot of potentially contentious topics here, increasing taxes on those making more than $250K, capping payday loan rates, a "right to work" bill, etc & co -- I see they're featuring Dan McGee's SB 46...but kinda missing its point. The Missoulian:
A proposed anti-abortion constitutional amendment, which declares that "the protection of unborn human life is a compelling state interest," tops the list of bills up for hearing this week at the Montana Legislature.
That measure, Senate Bill 46, by Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, will be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee at 9 a.m. on Wednesday in Room 303. It is expected to draw big crowds for and against the measure.
Yes, SB 46 would define unborn human life as a "compelling state interest" -- but as a reason to abrogate an individual's right to privacy as guaranteed by Montana's constitution. That is, if you're preggo, you've no constitutional protections against the state's incursions into your pregancy. What would keep the Dan McGees of the world from legislating access to your medical records, dictating how you steward your pregancy, and dictating which health care providers you could visit? And what's "unborn life" anyway? Does Senator McGee have a particular threshhold? Does a woman's right to privacy end at the third trimester? At conception? Or do her ovaries packed with viable eggs exclude her from constitutional protection until menopause?
Enquiring minds want to know... |
| Jay Stevens :: Dan McGee: no right to privacy for pregnant women |
|
|
| Poll |
| Voting. Useful or not? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
