A Nevada judge has tossed out a proposed so-called personhood initiative saying the language was too vague and violated state law that limits questions to one subject.
Like in Montana, the Nevada ballot initiative petition does not specifically mention abortion, but is a back door attempt to totally ban abortion in the state.
Carson City District Court Judge James Russell said the measure was too broad and general in nature to be put before voters in November.
"The issue to me is, are we adequately informing voters on what they're voting on," Russell said in a ruling from the bench after listening to about two hours of arguments.
Besides being vague, Russell said, the initiative violates a law limiting referendum questions to a single subject.
"There's no way for the voter to understand the effects of the initiative," he said.
The case came to court after a Nevada woman, a pharmacist and an OB-GYN together filed a legal challenge against the petition, arguing that the initiative proposes far reaching changes to the Nevada Constitution and laws, is misleading and fails to give voters a clear understanding of the changes it proposes and its purpose and effect.
It was reported today that Annie Bukacek of the Montana Policy Institute's anti-health care "conferences" and demonstrations and the abortion ban ballot initiative backed by Warburton, McGee, and Butcher, among others:
...is under investigation for alleged abuse of patients or fraud with regard to Medicaid billing involving Bukacek's medical practice. Questions about praying with patients also have been raised. Bukacek said she spent an hour and a half Wednesday with an FBI agent, a criminal investigator and two health-care fraud investigators...
National activists are again trying to use Montana as electoral proving grounds to challenge Roe v Wade since federal legislative efforts have been fruitless.
But after a whistle-stop tour from out-of-state activists failed to bring out local support, Wendy Warburton, R-Havre, and the rag-tag group of misfits who refuse to see the writing on the wall are also having trouble putting on a happy face today.
"They have a lot more money than we do," she said of local Montana-based organizations who oppose the constitutional amendment.
The amendment also failed to qualify for the ballot last election cycle.
Local Montana groups don't seem surprised at the lack of support the initiative idea is getting.
"We raise all of our money from the grassroots in Montana," [Allyson Hagen, Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana] said, "If we have more money, it's because we have more support."
Even those who Warburton thought would be on her side aren't supporting the amendment:
"the Montana Catholic Conference, a mainstay in the pro-life movement, is not supporting the proposal. It questions the strategy of an all-out challenge to Roe v. Wade at this time."
This weekend, one of the nations most infamous opponents of birth control will travel to Montana to pitch the so-called "personhood" amendment. The amendment is a total ban on abortion with no exceptions that is written in such a way that it could also ban many forms of birth control, some fertility treatments, and cause a host of legal and budgetary problems.
The Pill Kills project is among the more extreme and dangerous of the American Life League's activities. The campaign spreads lies such as telling women that birth inherently dangerous and may lead to "shrinking of the womb" and even death.
These "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" signs, first seen at the 9/12 march in Washington DC, were the brainchild of Judie Brown, director of the American Life League and denounced by the Catholics she claimed to work to support as
"an outrage and an embarrassment to the Catholic community [that] scor[es] cheap political points at the expense of common good solutions to the current crisis in the health care system."
This campaign marks the fourth attempt in two years (two initiatives, two legislative referenda) in Montana to redefine personhood and interfere in Montana's constitutionally protected right to privacy. Anti-choice groups fell nearly 20,000 signatures short of qualifying for the 2008 ballot. In order to qualify for the 2010 ballot, proponents will have to collect 48,674 signatures, including 10 percent of the voters in each of 40 legislative house districts.
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.
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!
So. A 23-year-old kid opens fire on Pittsburg police and kills three. He donned a bulletproof vest and ambushed the officers with an "assault rifle." But the big news on the 'tubes is that the shooter -- Richard Poplawski -- had a thing for far-right conspiracy theories, and recently expressed a fear that Obama was going to take his guns. And the shooting took place three days after a screed on gun shows appeared in the Pittsburg Tribune.
Dave Niewert is all over this story, writing, "We've been reporting for a while on the surge in gun sales, and how the paranoia around guns is making the more unstable elements of the right particularly edgy. Inevitably, that edginess is going to break out into actual violence -- as it appears to have done today."
Of course, it's not ju st extremist rhetoric on firearms -- it's all over the place lately, even extending to calls to arms over sparkly dishes and embodied by the weird rantings that Glenn Beck has engaged in since getting his Fox News gig. But Poplawski obviously had mental issues. Kicked out of the Marine Corps. Arguing with neighbors. Shooting cops in the head. Is it fair to blame talking heads for this incident?
...when you point out that certain individuals with all their talk about "revolution" and "armed insurrection" are inciting this kind of behavior in unstable people, you will get howls of protest about the 1st Amendment and what not. Sure, crazy people do crazy things. But that doesn't make it responsible to encourage them, which is what a lot of really foolish people are doing right now for purely political reasons.
And that's a legitimate point, I think. This kind of insane chatter used to be reserved for late-night AM shows and obscure online forums, but mainstream media has abetted, even encouraged this kind of rabble-rousing. Just think of Dan McGee's recent rant over abortion:
McGee said Republicans attempted to work with Democrats on these issues but it did not seem to take. He also compared abortion with slavery and predicted an upheaval comparable to the Civil War. "You bet there will be," McGee said.
Certainly (I hope) this was overheated rhetoric -- start a war over abortion? -- but if a Montanan lays waste to a health-care clinic that provides abortions to women who want them, how responsible is McGee? Wouldn't the senator deserve some censure?
And yet...there is no reprimand for McGee from anyone, neither his fellow legislators, nor the newspapers that are supposedly serving our communities. Shouldn't someone -- besides a partisan hack blogger, I mean -- step forward and let McGee know that a violent solution to a political problem won't be tolerated and demand that he recant his statement? Shouldn't we let these people know that extremism won't be tolerated in a democratic society?
It is truly unfortunate that the big business of killing babies has so persuaded the Democratic Party that they will disallow the people of Montana the opportunity to express themselves on this extremely vital issue," [Dan] McGee said.
I can't figure it out -- is McGee a liar or deluded? Seriously, the belief that people support women's reproductive rights because they're beholden to some monolithic baby-killing corporate industry is...weird, to say the least. But then this isn't McGee's first foray off into unexplored territory, is it? I guess someone has to fill Roger Koopman's shoes...
McGee said Republicans attempted to work with Democrats on these issues but it did not seem to take. He also compared abortion with slavery and predicted an upheaval comparable to the Civil War. "You bet there will be," McGee said.
That's right! McGee's going to protect the "sanctity of life" by killing people that don't agree with him!
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?
Wow. Dan McGee appears to have come unhinged over climate change. Check out some of these quotes from today's report on the state Environmental Quality Council:
"This whole thing is a lie..."
[snip]
"I imagine there will be compromise on this stuff, which will be an unfortunate thing in my opinion....Rest assured, these issues will come before the Legislature, and if the Democrats are still in control, these things will become law in the state of Montana and only the poorest people in the state will be paying for this."
... McGee said he's hopeful that by the time the 2009 Legislature rolls around, clear scientific evidence disputing the "global warming hoax" will be available to lawmakers.
[snip]
McGee agrees that there is an agenda, but he said it's far more sinister than just trying to save the state money by conserving energy and resources.
"This about the control of people's lives. It's about the control of land. It's about control of people," McGee said. "This is about a liberal, socialist agenda. Period. This is about trying to get the United Nations or some sort of global entity to be the overseer of all the nations of the world. What better way than by having an issue with global climate?"
Folks, we're entering Krayton Kerns territory here. To believe that somehow a century of research into the theory of climate change was part of a "hoax" to...well...something or other...that's there's an organized conspiracy...? I mean...this is kind of screwy.
Attention, people! If your conspiracy has no motive and involves a few billion people, it's probably not a conspiracy!
The thing is, I've seen McGee in action during a hearing on drug court reform, and the dude seemed very reasonable, open to new ideas, and respectful of evidenced-based arguments. But this McGee? He sound irrational, close-minded, and is spouting late-night radio conspiracy theories. It's the Bizarro McGee, speaking for the little voices he hears in his head!
I've said this before, but even if you don't believe in climate change (although it's at your doorstep), there's absolutely no reason to oppose the shift to an alternative-energy-based economy. It reduces pollutants; it weans us off our dependency of oil, reducing our involvement in conflict regions; it saves consumers money; it saves taxpayer money; it brings money to the economy. The only reason to oppose heavy investment in alternative energy and its associated infrastructure is if you have a vested interest in Big Energy and the industries involved in the extraction of fossil fuels. Because those are precisely the industries that will (hopefully) shrivel and die in the 21st century.
Pogie already brilliantly skewered our state's Republican legislator/scientists for denying global warming on the basis of...of...well...not really on any rational basis, mind you. Pogie:
You know, I have a lot to be thankful for, but this evening, I think I most thankful that the anti-rational zealots running the Republican Party weren't in power when scientists discovered that diseases could be controlled by the judicious use of vaccines or that water could contain deadly microbes and needed to be treated, or asbestos was dangerous for human...oh, wait, they still don't believe that, do they?
I don't have much to add here, other than all this talk reminds me of William Jennings Bryan's last lamentable days futilely campaigning against evolution. Take this anti-evolution pamphlet, for example, entitled "The Menace of Evolution," which is a several hundred word tirade accusing science of seeking to supplant Christianity as a new form of religion, or irreligion, or what-have-you. The short argument is this:
The right of the tax-payers to decide what shall be taught can hardly be disputed. Someone must decide. The hand that writes the pay-check rules the school; if not, to whom shall the right to decide such important matters be intrusted?
That is, reality should be determined by a democratic vote.
Jay is all over this, but I want to throw in my two cents as well. A bunch of Republicans seem to think that Sam Kitzenberg committed some great travesty by switching political parties two years after his last election (in that election he was primaried and the state party apparently supported his primary opponent).
At the same time that these Republicans howl that Kitzenberg will be considered a Democrat, they demand that Rick Jore be counted as a Republican. Now, Jore has not been a Republican for six years. He left the party in 2000 and he ran in a legislative district this year in a race where Republicans got precisely 0 votes.
Well, never in a million years did I think the Republicans would put someone like Scott Sales in charge of their House caucus. But they did. Consider this the beginning of a big wandering into the wilderness. Already, Sales is pissing on everyone's shoes -- fellow House Republicans, Senate Republicans, the Governor. And he seems to think that now is a time to make himself known as the state's roadblock, declaring that Republicans "have to know who our enemy is and who our friends are."
My gut says that the far right's take over of the House Republican caucus is a good sign. Sales won't be able to keep his caucus unified. He's too crazy.
Senator Mike Cooney is set to be President and Representative John Parker is set to be Speaker. Senator Corey Stapleton will be minority leader.
Update -- Just heard most of the rest of the leadership teams. In addition to Speaker Parker, Dems will be led by Speaker Pro Tem Bergren, Majority Leader Art Noonan, Majority Whips Dave McAlpin and Margie Campbell, and Caucus Chair Dan Villa. In the Senate, in addition to President Mike Cooney, we have President Pro Tem Dan Harrington, Majority Leader Carol Williams, and Majority Whips Lynda Moss and Lane Larson. In the Senate GOP caucus, Dan McGee and Greg Barkus will be Minority Whips.
Leave it to Senator Dan McGee to get gung-ho to repeal a law just passed by an overwhelming vote of the people. Less than two weeks after the ethics initiative passed, McGee is already trying to repeal it. Must have ruined his retirement plans or something. Tough break, dude.
