These guys have quite the reputation. So the Montana Pro-Life Coalition scoured their ranks for a front person they hoped would have as little baggage as possible--but Annie Bukacek is turning out to be every bit as much the self-aggrandizing wing-nut as the rest of them.
Not familiar with Bukacek? You should be, she's the new official face of extreme-right politics in Montana. Bukacek's all about giving rights to "the unborn"-- but once born, she doesn't want them to have healthcare.
Reporters I know have found that Bukacek is the only member of the so-called organization that is allowed to talk to the press.
If you're so inclined, you can seek out Bukacek's comparison of "islamofaciasts to christofacists" and her views on radical Islam being the "true" Islam of the Koran. Or her advice that husbands love their wives as Christ loved his church (ick.)
The treatises are a catalogue of her beliefs that the laws of Montana and the United states should reflect "God's laws." Montana Taliban anyone? How long before adultery is punishable by a weak without food in the stocks? And divorce? Forget about it. We should probably go ahead and cancel the NFL on Sundays, too. (There is no mention of abortion or NFL in the bible, so both are clearly abominations.)
Does Bukacek have a right to believe this stuff? Of course, but she doesn't have the right to force them on the rest of us by permanently amending our constitution.
If Bukacek really wanted to decrease the need for abortion in Montana, she would join the mainstream and work to increase access to affordable birth control and medically accurate sex-ed to decrease unintended pregnancy in the first place.
Thanks to Dan Savage for this excellent editorial inspired by a recent Gallup poll that showed for the first time that a majority of Americans considered themselves "pro-life":
...I don't consider a fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence to be the equivalent of the Gerber baby, and find people who do to be curious, especially for the anger they bring to the debate. If being pro-life meant an across-the-board reverence for life -- if pro-life activists were also Human Rights Watch members, also fierce opponents to capital punishment and vigorous battlers of AIDS in Africa, and of course anti-handgun and anti-war -- then I could almost understand the compressed rage that pro-lifers often exhibit.
But they aren't. Nor are they in favor of the contraception that would prevent abortions, a tipoff that this -- at its core -- is not about preventing violence to the unborn so much as it is about unraveling a modern society where women are able to plan their pregnancies. Stealing is bad, and religion speaks against it, but no congregation ever took to the streets to protest theft. There is an intensity -- at times a frenzy -- behind the abortion debate, which hints that something else is going on, that religion is attacking modern sexually open society at its weakest point, taking a stand that requires them to not only see abortion as a morally significant act, which it is, but to insist that morality cannot shift under any circumstance, and that having an abortion is the same if you're 14, or 24, or 64.
The "abortion is murder" line is just that -- a slogan. The people saying it obviously don't really believe that, in their hearts, because otherwise they'd be even more extreme than they already are. If it's murder, then why aren't they talking about, not only banning abortion, but also conducting enormous public trials to prosecute the millions of women who have had one? That doesn't seem to be on the table.
...If you believe that sex is for procreation and nothing else, then a pro-life stance flows naturally. If you believe it's for procreation, at certain times, but also for fun, then you're pro-choice. Don't hate me for bringing the news, but the for-fun element seems to be winning, no matter what last week's poll numbers say.
Seems to sum it up pretty well. And let's remember that, of the people identifying themselves at "pro-life," only a small subset of that group wants to outlaw abortion in all cases. Most people want abortion to remain legal in some capacity.
It's ironic, then, that while the anti-abortion rhetoric over the decades has created doubt about abortions, especially in the later stages of pregnancies, that this propaganda hasn't changed many people's views about sex or women's rights. That's probably because all the ire and signs and videos and pictures have concentrated on pregnancy and the fetus; little of it has attacked sexual mores. When it does, it turns people off.
This is something I write about a lot, but there are ways to reduce abortion. Real sex-ed (which, by the way, should tout abstinence). Access to birth control. Accessible and affordable health care. Accessible and affordable day care. Continuing ed classes, more drug treatment programs, etc & co. But, oddly, you don't see many hardcore lifer activists working on any of those issues. In fact, many of the extreme anti-abortionists are expressly opposed to any of those reforms.
Reminds me of an encounter I had during last year's primaries when I was collecting signatures for the CHIP expansion at the Lolo polling place. There was a signature-gatherer for Rick Jore's anti-abortion constitutional amendment there - you remember, the one that would define life as starting at conception, the initiative that was too much even for the Catholic church - so I sauntered over for a chat and to ask her to sign my sheet, and maybe let folks signing her petition know we were there...
Only instead of a signature, the woman - I swear - burst a blood vein in her forehead while yelling at me, calling me a "socialist" and a host of other names unfit for this fine publication. Never mind that extending health care coverage to children of low-income families might actually sway some would-be mothers to carry to term. Never mind that her initiative, if passed and written into the Montana constitution, might cause some low-income families to sink into poverty (because abortion bans always impact the poorest among us the worst - a rich woman can always find a way to safely end her pregnancy).
Confronted with a choice between her ideology and the children she ostensibly was campaigning for, she chose her ideology.
A good story I missed yesterday from the Chronicle's Daniel Person (whom I should note has generally been doing good work) on the House moving to protect CHIP. Rep. Bill Glaser takes a swing at Sen. Keith Bales, a fellow Republican:
The one Republican who voted with the Democrats was Rep. Bill Glaser, R-Huntley. Glaser caught fire from some conservative Republicans in 2007 for working with Gov. Brian Schweitzer to pass a budget in special session. He said his Republican colleagues are risking another session with no budget passed by standing firm on the education and insurance debates. "Mr. Bales is wrong. Mr. Bales thinks he can go against 70 percent of the voters. Mr. Bales thinks he can destroy schools in two years. ... I don't agree with that," Glaser said.
Disbanding the committee forces them to work in consensus rather than compromise. I like consensus," he said.
The good news for the state is that there is at least one Republican embracing common sense and working across the aisle to support education and children's health insurance. The bad news is that the history of the modern GOP in Montana means that his colleagues will clobber him for doing so.
If you see Rep. Glaser, tell him thanks for his courage.
For the past couple years, we've seen Congressman Rehberg variously position himselves as an opponent of or a champion for the state children's health insurance program. Now is another chance for him to be a champion -- he can go to bat within his own part for the 15,000 children being left out by Senate Republicans' proposed cuts to the Healthy Montana Kids program.
From my inbox:
The Honorable Dennis Rehberg
2448 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC, 20515
April 14, 2009
Dear Congressman Rehberg,
In January you sent a letter to the Speaker of the House expressing support for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I commend you for showing leadership on this important issue. Unfortunately, this leadership is now desperately needed back here in Montana.
Last fall 70% of Montana's voters supported children's health care reform by voting for the Montana Healthy Kids Initiative (I-155). Last week, despite the overwhelming public support, State Senate Republicans cut health care for 15,000 kids from the budget and tabled a bill to implement the Healthy Montana Kids Initiative. You and I know this is the wrong direction for Montana.
In the press release that accompanied your letter you stated, "now's not the time to play politics with kids health." I couldn't agree more. I also agree with your statement that "during these tough economic times SCHIP is more important than ever." I am sure you are as committed as I am to these ideas.
Senate Democrats have exhausted every possible avenue of working with Senate Republicans to find a solution that respects the wishes of the voters. Our efforts have been repeatedly rejected. Senate Republicans need leadership - your leadership- to break this impasse.
There are only 11 days remaining in the 61st legislative session but you still have time to make a difference in the lives of 15,000 kids in Montana. I thank you for your past leadership on the issue of children's health care and I urge you to continue showing that leadership by calling Senate Finance & Claims Committee Chairman Keith Bales (R-Otter) and the Public, Health, Welfare & Safety Committee Chairman Roy Brown (R-Billings) and ask them to reconsider their actions from last week.
Thank you for all you do for the people of Montana.
Man, when you turn over the rock that's the current Montana Republican party, all sorts of creepy crawlies scurry about.
The first bit of news comes via Pete Talbot and Planned Parenthood of Montana:
On Thursday, the Senate may hear an amendment from Dan McGee (R-Laurel) to strip state funding for Montana's family planning clinics from the state's budget.
1. This represents a 20% cut to family planning clinics statewide
2. 70% of Montana's family planning clients were at or below 150% of poverty.
3. Every $1 spent on family planning saves $4 down the road in public funding.
Dan McGee is Mr. Abortion in the 2009 legislature. He championed a constitutional amendment that would strip privacy protection for Montana's women so as to better monitor their pregnancies, and more recently threatened a civil war over abortion. And now this, an attack on the reproductive health of Montana's women. Obviously it's his little budetary salvo on Planned Parenthood's Fort Sumnter, but if there's a better way to spur more abortions, I can't think of one.
What does this dude have against women, anyway?
The other news comes from the Flathead Democratic party's website. Senator Greg Barkus of Kalispell slipped in a $600k appropriation to fund Swank Enterprises cleanup of the Kalispell Post and Timber Co. yard, which they recently purchased. (So much for free market principles, eh?) Besides being odious for obvious reasons, the Flathead Democrats point out that Dean Swank and his family have generously donated more than $25k to Montana Republicans over the years, and that Barkus, himself, is a recipient of Swank's largesse.
A $600,000 return on a $25,000 investment is a pretty good return, eh?
Wait! It gets worse! Barkus is, of course, one of the proponents of gutting the CHIP expansion that voters -- and Flathead voters -- overwhelmingly supported this November. Apparently -- if this amendment is indicative of GOP strategy -- they're gutting CHIP expansion so as to be able to raid the funds that were originally set aside for the expanded CHIP enrollment! And giving it to friends!
Is it just me or is it odd watching Republicans rush to demand public comment on nominations to the redistricting commission at the same time that they are ignoring a giant, legally-binding public comment that came in the form of last year's Healthy Montana Kids ballot initiative?
Look -- seek public input on your nominees or don't. I couldn't really care less because posting a comment section on your website hardly requires that you listen to or care about the comments that get made. But don't tell me you deeply value public opinion when the current thrust of your public message is that voters didn't know what they were supporting last November.
And just when I was thinking that, you know, maybe we should post a new poll and take down the one querying readers about Republican opposition to CHIP because, well, it was a done deal, right? The GOP was pursuing an idiotic strategy by opposing the CHIP expansion, which voters supported at a 70-percent clip in November, and, boy, you don't get many points explaining your position by calling your constituency uninformed.
But then the Senate Finance Committee amended the bill providing CHIP funding, gutted it, and are passing it back to the House. From Matt Gouras' report:
Senate Majority Leader Jim Peterson said he believes he has the votes in a chamber controlled by Republicans 27-23 to fight off efforts to restore full funding of I-155 on Thursday. He said the GOP wants to maintain the $100 million-plus cuts it made to the House version of the budget.
"No one wants to see children go without health insurance," Peterson said. "The issue is spending money we don't have and keeping a structurally balanced budget."
Er...is it me...or has the money already been allocated to the program? And can't be used for anything else? Singer:
...the initiative set up a special fund that can only be used to fund the initiative. I don't understand the ins-and-outs. I'm not on taxation or appropriations or whatever. But the fund exists and will exist whether the money is spent on little kids' health care. But it can't be spent on anything else.
So, in other words, either the Republicans in Helena are just straight up philosophically dedicated to hating on little kids OR they don't understand the budget process.
Every time a newspaper quotes one of these GOP legislative leaders about how we can't "afford" CHIP, etc & co, that it threatens a balanced budget, etc & co, the article should include the little factlet that the expansion is already paid for and the money can't be used for anything else.
Now, I've heard a lot of moaning and groaning from righties that the 2000 legislative redistricting essentially put Democrats back into power in the legislature...but given the election results from 2008, where Democratic candidates won a clear majority of votes in legislative races but ended up underrepresented in the legislature, it's obvious more redistricting needs to take place. This opposition to CHIP only underscores that point: how could the majority body in the legislature be so out-of-step with Montana's electorate? Answer: it's not representative. The Republican party has been shedding supporters in the state at a record clip, and yet they carry on as if they own their seats and you, the voter.
And that's why you'll see some heated efforts by the GOP to rig the next redistricting panel to their favor. If the panel gets put together fairly, there's a chance for the districts to be redrawn more fairly, to ensure Montana gets the representation it wants. That's where the next big fight will take place, over the composition of this board. And Exhibit A in the case against the GOP's attempts to circumvent the law will be the CHIP expansion that Republican legislators are trying to tear down.
Yargh. This is the fight that won't end. Senate Republicans just cut CHIP again. It's like they really don't give a damn about either little kids getting health insurance or voters getting what they voted for.
One Republican has broken ranks -- John Brueggeman -- but the rest are standing firm so far.
What is strange is who is leading this effort -- Senator Dave Lewis. Dave Lewis has always struck me (from afar) as a reasonable guy. He's digging in hard on this fight, though. It's almost like he just wants to write the negative mail pieces.
Late Friday night Republicans in the Senate Finance & Claims Committee amended the voter- approved Healthy Montana Kids Initiative and denied medical care to 15,000 of Montana's neediest children.
Montanans voted in support of the Healthy Montana Kids Plan by over 70% in November 2008 - ten Senate Republicans changed what 329,432 Montanans wanted.
How and why did this happen?
• 10 Senate Republicans in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee argued that "Montana's voters didn't understand what they were voting for" when they passed the Healthy Montana Kids Plan.
• 10 Senate Republicans in the Senate Finance and Claims Committee thought the Healthy Montana Kids Plan was too expensive even though all the money for the Plan was set aside in a special revenue account and ONLY needed to be implemented.
• The amendment reduced the eligibility level by 50%; therefore, reducing the number of kids that will be eligible for coverage by the Healthy Montana Kids Plan. Now 15,000 kids won't qualify for the Children's Health Insurance Program.
What you can do?
Contact your Republican Legislators TODAY - tell them to start listening to the voters and pass the Healthy Montana Kids Initiative!
• Email your legislators by filling out this form
http://leg.mt.gov/css/Sessions... • Contact your legislators by calling 406-444-4800
• Write a Letter Editor for your newspaper
• Tell your friends, family and co - workers that the Republicans of the Senate are not listening to Montana voters.
P.S. The full Senate will consider the budget on Wednesday morning!
15,000 kids are counting on you to contact your Republican Senator TODAY!
Little kids continue to be a political football in Helena as (most) Democratic legislators continue to try to get funding for Head Start and health insurance across the line and into the end zone and (most) Republican legislators try to spike the ball on the 50th yard line.
We've been writing about this issue for a while and we know the basic messages coming out of both sides: Democrats say, "They is kidz and gets sick. We has to insure." Republicans say, "But is costz $! Kthxbai!"
But here's the thing -- the initiative set up a special fund that can only be used to fund the initiative. I don't understand the ins-and-outs. I'm not on taxation or appropriations or whatever. But the fund exists and will exist whether the money is spent on little kids' health care. But it can't be spent on anything else.
So, in other words, either the Republicans in Helena are just straight up philosophically dedicated to hating on little kids OR they don't understand the budget process. Given that Sen. Dave Lewis, a smart guy and former budget director, is one of the Republicans leading the charge here, I have a tough time believing ignorance is driving all of it. That's too bad, because based on a couple brief encounters and my general impression, Dave Lewis is one of the reasonable Republicans.
Maybe my understanding is wrong -- it has been before. If it is, please correct me in comments. I'd love to be wrong on this.
A key House committee made its initial moves Wednesday in piecing together the state budget, but it left unresolved one of the biggest issues dividing Democrats and Republicans: funding for an expanded health insurance program for Montana children....
[Rep. Penny Morgan (R-Billings)] offered an amendment that would increase state funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by $10 million over the next two years, to add thousands of children to the program and capture millions more in federal matching funds.
The panel's 10 Democrats, however, voted against the proposal, saying they would agree only to fully funding Healthy Montana Kids, which expands both CHIP and Medicaid, another government health insurance program.
"I think that this amendment takes us in the wrong direction of what Montana voters told us loud and clear last November," said Rep. Dan Villa, D-Anaconda.
Voters approved the expansion by passing Initiative 155 by a 70-30 margin. Fully funding I-155 would cost about $35 million in state money the next two years.
I do think House Democrats should compromise on this issue. They could, say, agree to the Republicans' choice for card stock of the paper on which the bill to fully fund CHIP is signed into law. But to back down an inch on the timing or funding for the program, as approved by 70 percent of Montanans? Not a chance. CHIP funding shouldn't even be accepted as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.
It's the duty of the legislature to fund the program. Anything less would be rightfully seen as the abrogation of the contract between the people and its representation.
The Legislature has authority to appropriate money, and a majority of lawmakers could refuse to fund Healthy Montana Kids. However, the Legislature couldn't spend Healthy Montana Kids money on anything else unless it first repealed the law the people enacted on Nov. 4, according to Greg Petesch, the Legislature's chief attorney.
Such a repeal would be an affront to Montana voters. Sure, things have changed since November. That's when Montanans elected 125 of our 150 lawmakers. Should we immediately reconsider all those choices too? That would be as ridiculous as saying that the voters' Healthy Montana Kids decision should be blocked, delayed or rescinded.
Montana House Speaker Bob Bergren writes a letter:
February 23, 2009
Dear Representative Rehberg,
Thank you for the letter you sent recently to leadership in Congress expressing your support of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Your Republican colleagues in the Montana Legislature need to receive the same message.
Montana's children deserve access to quality health care, during these tough economic times making the State Children's Health Insurance Program more important than ever. I believe it is incumbent not only upon the Congress to expand SCHIP to cover more uninsured kids but the Montana Legislature should listen to the voters who passed the Healthy Montana Kids Initiative. Seventy percent of Montana voters approved Initiative 155 - the Healthy Montana Kids plan - last fall. It passed in every county and every legislative district.
I-155 expands eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP), to cover about 30,000 lower-income Montana kids who are now without insurance.
However, there are members of your own party in the Montana Legislature who don't share your support of CHIP and have voted to block its implementation. Last week Republican members of the legislature questioned whether voters knew what they were doing when they passed the initiative and suggested that Montana could not afford new spending for Children's Health Insurance. As you know the funding for the initiative is part of the governor's budget proposal.
Since you were willing to express your support to leaders in Congress, I hope you will also urge the members of your own party in the Montana Legislature to support CHIP and the will of the voters of Montana.
Again, thank you for your attention to and action on this timely issue. By asking the members of your party to do the right thing, we can ensure that Montana gets the health care we voted for and our kids deserve.
Mike Dennison has a nice analysis of the legislative wrangle over funding the voter-mandated CHIP expansion. Or, I should say, an analysis of the Republican intransigence to fund what the voters overwhelmingly approved in November.
Dennison:
In the wake of his move to delay funding to expand a popular children's health-insurance program, state Sen. Dave Lewis of Helena is getting plenty of mail these days - and it's not complimentary.
"I got one e-mail from someone who thinks I did the right thing," he said Saturday. "The other 700 who e-mailed me think I'm an idiot."
So why would Lewis and his fellow Republicans set themselves up for this litany of public abuse? Only they can say for sure.
Hilarious. Indeed, Mr. Dennison, the Republicans' efforts to throttle CHIP have left a lot of us scratching their heads, too. Still, Dennison moves bravely on and offers two possible reasons why the Senate Republicans are trying to kill the CHIP mandate:
Ideology.
...many in the Montana Republican Party have never liked CHIP, even though it's politically popular. They see it as more socialization of health care, with its government provision of insurance, and note that Healthy Montana Kids would add up to 60 new bureaucrats to oversee the expansion.
-- Politics.
It's possible that funding for Healthy Montana Kids is just a bargaining chip as the budget debate unfolds this session. The expansion can't be delayed without changing the law, and that takes at least one Democratic vote, since the House is tied 50-50.
And it can't be funded without some Republican votes, since Republicans also control the Senate.
If Senate Republicans are trying to use CHIP expansion as a bargaining tool, it's probably the dumbest gambit in recent memory. Passed with seventy percent of the electorate supporting it, legislative Democrats have no incentive to bargain on the issue, because if it's scuttled, Republicans will take the fall. And Dave Lewis will be famous. Or, rather, infamous.
On the other hand, if it's ideological opposition...well...it'll be yet another reminder of how far the state GOP has strayed from the electorate.
Me? Sure, I'd love to see the Montana GOP go down in flames, but I'd rather see the legislature provide funding for CHIP. There are kids out there who need the health care coverage.
GOP legislators this week endorsed a measure to massively restrict abortion rights and also called for massive cuts to children's health insurance programs. Barney Frank said conservatives believe life begins at conception and ends at birth and this is a pretty example of that line of thinking.
Look, I'm a safety netter, a social Democrat, whatever. I think the government should ensure that all Americans have access to health insurance. But why the hell do conservatives think that compelled birth coupled with no assistance to low-income families to provide the basics like health care and food is a great idea for the little ones they're bringing into the world?
Last night, we had a class for Forward Montana and MontPIRG interns and we talked progressive values. I offered one approach that I'm a fan of -- Rawlsian justice. I just can't imagine the mindset that thinks that a fetus 3 days before being born is a defenseless human, but upon departure from the womb should be a self-actualized individual fully capable of providing health care for itself.
I should note -- to their credit, Sens. John Brueggeman and Ryan Zinke voted against the McGee abortion measure. And the CHIP cuts haven't faced a wider hearing. There may be more sanity yet. Time will tell.
When Matt first wrote about GOP legislators gutting CHIP, I didn't believe it. I mean, the initiative granting CHIP the extra funds passed by a 2-to-1 margin! Even Montana's Republicans wouldn't stoop so low, wouldn't wallow so overtly in the filthy muck of ideology, wouldn't so crassly display their subservience to big business, would they? Would they?
The Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services voted today to strip $70 million out of the Healthy Montana Kids Act, effectively gutting the program according to one legislator I spoke with today.
This decision was made on a party line vote with the following Republican legislators voting to cut:
Sen. Dave Lewis
Rep. Penny Morgan
Rep. Don Roberts
Sen. John Esp
I'm slammed at work today. Anyone have the vote totals for these districts on the Healthy Montana Kids Initiative?
Update -- Just so we're clear on numbers, we're talking about health insurance for roughly 29,000 children. And the bulk of the money for this program would be federal money -- federal money that even Rep. Dennis Rehberg voted for (but that Max Baucus is largely responsible with the SCHIP reauthorization).
We're talking $18 million in state money in FY2010. That's a little more than $50 per child per month -- not a bad deal for health insurance that will get needed health care provided now, not years down the road.
The Healthy Montana Kids Act got 65% of the vote in HD 89, which Rep. MacLaren represents.
Like I said, bold move.
Update -- This makes more sense. It is moving in a package with A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: LEGALIZING TORTURE OF BABY KOALAS AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
The suprise isn't that HB 157 passed; after all, it's the bill that would implement the expansion of CHIP coverage that Montanans supported by more than a 2-to-1 margin this November by pulling the lever for I-155, the "Healthy Montana Kids" initiative. The surprise is that 41 House Representatives voted against it, despite the fact, as jhwygirl has pointed out, "the fiscal note has $0 impact to the state's general fund."
What may not be surprising is that all 41 "nays" were Republican. I say, "not surprising," because it's been obvious for some time that the state GOP is adrift somewhere out in uncharted extremist waters. It's an odd bill to make a statement over -- after all, CHIP is wildly popular and effective -- but they made their statement.
It's these kind of votes that will eventually catch up to the GOP -- that already has caught up to Republicans in Montana. Jon Tester's win didn't happen in a vacuum, neither did the sweep of Democrats in the state-wide elections or Obama's near upset of McCain in the general. Sure, the old folks are hanging on to their party affiliations; but the GOP is shedding supporters in every election. And, in doing so, apparently feels free to tack steadily to the right, towards irrelevancy.
Jhwygirl has the list of "yea" voters, which includes legislators who squeaked out wins this past November. Missoula's Bill Nooney, for example. But here are the Republicans that supported HB 157; they deserve our accolade:
Elise Arntzen
William Glaser
Brian Hoven
Dave Kasten
Gary Maclaren
Penny Morgan
Jesse O'Hara
They apparently bucked their leadership and its far-right ideology to do the right thing for Montana's kids.
Republican opponents argued that while Montana voters supported I-155, they may not have realized its ongoing cost, its strain on the state budget and its creation of more health care bureaucracy in government.
Rep. Roy Hollandsworth, R-Brady, said that when voters went to the polls in November, they probably thought the state had a $1 billion surplus, which has largely evaporated as the economy has soured.
"Knowing that (the surplus) isn't true, they might have changed their view," he said.
Maybe Hollandsworth's constituents are waking up today and, over their morning paper, wishing they had at least one vote back...
Good news from the legislature on CHIP: Chuck Hunter's HB 157 passed out of the Appropriations Commmittee, 17-3 yesterday.
What's HB 157, you ask? Why, it's the bill that implements the expansion of CHIP, as dictated by the "Healthy Montana Kids" initiative that Montanans passed this passed election.
Oh, you say, yawn. Of course it passed.
Wait! There had been an amendment inserted to the bill that would have stripped "preemptive eligibility" from the law.
Er, what?
Preemptive eligibility -- that's a provision that allows applicants (that is, children) to receive health care insurance during the three months it takes to verify that the family meet the program's eligibility standards. Apparently someone thought -- hey! They've been without insurance this long...what's another three months? and slipped in an amendment.
The good news is that the amendment striking down preemptive eligibility was withdraw, and the bill is now headed to the floor.
Those three votes against HB 157 in the Appropriations Committee? Ray Hawk, Roy Hollandsworth, and Dave Kasten all voted against the bill.
Bad news from the legislature on equal representation before the law: SB 223 was tabled in committee. Gary Perry, Jim Shockley, Aubyn Curtiss, John Esp, Greg Hinkle, Dan McGee, and Terry Murphy voted to deliberately exclude gays and lesbians from Montana's existing hate crimes statute.
And a quick note on SB 46 -- Dan McGee's ballot initiative, which will be heard before the Judiciary Committee on February 11 -- which adds, "the protection of unborn human life is a compelling state interest," after "the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."
A couple of thoughts. First, abortion was deemed a right of women under Roe v. Wade due to privacy concerns. McGee's bill is striking directly at that decision. It's an obvious attempt to criminalize abortion.
Second, basically what McGee is saying, is that a woman, if pregnant, has no right to be free from state control. A radical, like Rick Jore, would probably argue that the state has power over all women of child-bearing age, as he considers life to begin at conception. That is, the state has a vested interest in women's sex lives.
