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.
As you probably know, a Constitutional Initiative based on Rick Jore's HB 403 has been filed in Montana. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think this is a bad idea.
Hilariously, HB 403 had to include a special provision to make it clear that a right to life does not prohibit the state from implementing the death penalty -- a jump in logic that makes one wonder whether or not a right to free speech does not prevent the state from muzzling random citizens. It's even stranger since under the Amendment, the right to life is "paramount."
Of course, the pragmatic problems don't stop there. This is, of course, a Constitutional Amendment actively requiring the enactment of legislation to ensure all life, from the moment of conception, safety, health, happiness, and a clean and healthful environment. And, any individual who threatens fetal rights or life would presumably become a criminal or susceptible to some form of civil redress.
This, of course, opens a really insane can of worms. The state, for example, would have to launch criminal investigations into miscarriages.
These, of course, are the practical concerns. The other concerns are, no surprise, ideological. Here's one, for example: You think the state should be able to regulate birth policies? Then should the citizens of California be allowed to adopt a "One Child" rule?
I don't think so. I don't want the government telling Americans to have children or not have children.
On top of that, I don't think victims of rape or incest (which is often also rape) should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. I don't think mothers whose health or life is threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term should have to.
And, ultimately, I think that we're better off making sure every child is a wanted child. Personally, I'm not too excited about the notion of abortion, especially late-term abortion. That said, in the tough-to-determine situations, I trust the people closest to the decision -- the would-be parents -- to make that determination better than I will.
It's not a perfect system, but we generally don't get perfect systems. We get systems that create more good and less bad than their alternatives. This amendment clearly does not do that.
I'll admit, I was wrong. I thought the deafening silence from the conservative blogs was an indication that they knew something had gone horribly wrong.
Oops. It seems like the base is really crowing about Jore's appointment. Still, I have to hand it to them. Without their help, I wouldn't have found the Montana News Association's nutty story on the appointment (MNA is a rightwing fake news outlet):
Sales added that he has been receiving a great deal of positive feedback on his choice, but also negative from the "usual suspects." Speaker Sales countered claims that Jore is anti-public education with the statement: "If I thought Rick was a critic of public education, I wouldn’t have put him in this position."
Three possibilities here:
Sideshow Scott Sales was misquoted.
Sideshow Scott Sales is a liar.
Sideshow Scott Sales is an idiot.
There is simply no way that anyone with a third of a brain and a passable understanding of the English language could look at Jore's utterances and votes on public education and conclude that he is anything other than a critic of public education.
Jore literally spends the rest of the article talking about how to get rid of the "monopolistic" education system.
Send a message. Tell Scott Sales he needs to change these appointments. Even if Scott Sales doesn't listen, we may be able to convince some members of his caucus.
Is Rick Jore a Constitutionalist or a Republican? Right now, he seems to be a Quantum Politician -- appearing when and where he wants before disappearing again. He denies being a Republican (says the party became too liberal for him), but now, for the purpose of having all House committees split half-and-half, he says that he should be considered a Republican.
