Here we go again:
The Montana ProLife Coalition is proposing a 2010 constitutional initiative that ultimately could ban abortion by declaring that human life begins when an egg is fertilized....
Legislative efforts by Jore and Sen. Dan McGee, R-Laurel, failed in 2007 and 2009, respectively, to place similar proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot. Jore and other backers of a separate initiative fell more than 18,000 votes short of qualifying it for the 2008 ballot.
And, it bears repeating:
"This dangerous measure would establish legal rights, starting at fertilization with the intent of banning legal abortion in our state and threatening stem cell research, in vitro fertilization and birth control," said Allyson Hagen, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana.
She called instead for Montanans to find common ground and work to reduce unneeded pregnancies and the need for abortion by increasing women's access to affordable reproductive health care and birth control and by providing teens with medically accurate sex education.
Remember, this initiative was a little too crazy for the Catholic Church, let alone Montanans.
What is interesting about this go 'round, however, is that ProLife Coalition board member, Roland Horst, claims the initiative grants rights throughout an individual's life, "including the aged, infirm, and people with disabilities."
Now, I don't have the wording of last election cycle's CI-100 before me, but all I recall about it was that it defined life as beginning with conception. There weren't really any other "rights" added on to that initiative - it was simply a way of outlawing abortion. So...how would that initiative extend to others? Is it currently legal to, say, kill old people? Or the disabled?
Most reasonable people might expect these folks to honor the "life" after it emerges from the womb. Guaranteeing, say, health care for all. Or day care for the children of low-income parents. You know, taking some responsibility in society, especially after using the state to force women to carry to term. But I wager most reasonable people would be mistaken. I'd wager Horst is getting all Terry Schiavo on us. I don't think Horst et al want to expend the energy and, especially, the money, to help care for the living.
Update: I just saw the language of the proposed amendment, which (correct me if I'm wrong) was pretty much identical to that in 2008's CI-100. Here it is, as it would appear in Section 1, Article II, section 3 of the state's constitution:
All persons have a fundamental and inalienable right to life.
With respect to the right of life, the word "person" applies to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including fertilization.
Again, it's easy to imagine a plethora of crazy legal ramifications from something like this. Would a mother of a miscarriage be a murder suspect? Should a fetus get a social security number? Do they count as a deduction on our taxes? Does this make the national guard illegal? Certainly killing someone out of self defense would be unconstitutional, never mind the death penalty. |
