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.
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.
Josh Hafenbrack of the Orlando Sentinel reports on a group called "Personhood Florida" that is seeking to change Florida's constitution to define "personhood" as beginning with conception - in this case, when the sperm meets the egg.
But wait! There's more!
The amendment seeks to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. Also criminalized: the morning-after pill and oral contraceptives taken by women, known as the pill. "There are some (birth control) methods that kill a child," said Pat McEwan, who is leading the Personhood Florida group.
A few questions immediately spring to mind. Are the backers of "personhood" initiative in Montana associated with the "national anti-abortion" group driving Florida's? And do Rick Jore's people also believe that oral contraceptives would be banned if their initiative passes?
And lest you still doubt that the primary goal of these folks is to control sexuality, and not to protect the "unborn," consider the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, which would outlaw divorce in California.
I guess any woman in an abusive relationship can just go f*ck herself, right?
Reminds me of a comment I got in response to a post showing that the criminalization of abortion doesn't actually lead to fewer abortions, and suggested that, if the anti-abortion crowd really wanted to reduce abortions, they'd back things that work, like universal and affordable health care, subsidies of day care and higher education, and robust and realist sex ed. The response?
Do you really think that having a few less abortions happen is worth the increasing moral cesspool that we're tossing each new generation into? It's destroying souls (and society as a whole) to save a few bodies.
It's not about a "few bodies," stupid! It's about the morality!
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.
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.
Larry Kilgore, the former Dallas County Constitution Party chair who was (more or less) relieved of his duties for publicly supporting the death penalty for homosexuals, is now aiming his sights on the Texas GOP U.S. Senate primary against freshman incumbent John Cornyn, R-San Antonio. Kilgore, who is endorsed by Montana CP legislator Rick Jore and a host of other activists, finished second to Gov. Rick Perry in the GOP gubernatorial primary last year, garnering 50,000 votes (8%).
Good thing one of his running buddies was put in charge of House Education.
This is just insanity. Basically the GOP is suggesting just turning down free money. It's like buying lottery tickets, winning, and refusing the money on principle.
That's not a principle -- it's mental illness.
It's also lousy for the Montana economy. $2 billion will employ a lot of people, treat a lot of problems, and generally avoid trouble. And it does it without taking any additional tax money out of our state. Turning it down just means layoffs for workers who benefit from that money, untreated problems, and not even a corresponding tax cut to offset the problems resulting from the spending cut.
Big news today -- Rick Jore has announced he will not support the GOP budget package as it increases spending way too much.
"I don't like 13 percent increases in spending," Jore said. "The average Montanan is out there trying to make a living. They'd be in hog heaven if they had a 13 percent increase (in income). They're lucky if they get any increase."
Jore branded the proposed Republican budget increases "just outrageous."
Contrary to one legislative rumor, Jore said he won't leave the chamber to avoid voting, calling that tactic "an expression of a lack of integrity."
"I'm going to vote no," he said. "If they want to lower the budget down to a point, I'd consider voting for them."
The Dems, of course, are locked up (when someone pulls a gun on you during a political fight, you simply don't sit down at the table to negotiate -- apparently the GOP is pissed about this fact).
Now Republicans are threatening to make deeper cuts to pick up Jore's vote:
Interviewed separately, House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, said, "If all 49 Democrats lock up, there's a good chance we're going to have to cut the budget to get Jore to vote for it."
Now, this is a fine threat, but it's really pretty damn hollow. Sure, they can keep cutting corrections further (note to GOP -- things like Jessica's Law that increase penalties also increase prison population; this isn't a complicated concept). They can take the long knife to higher education or K-12. They can destroy mental health funding.
There's two problems with this approach, though. They don't just need 51 votes in the House -- any bills that cut state spending that significantly and threaten public safety, public schools, and public health will be either changed significantly in the Senate or vetoed by the Governor. What's more -- the Dems' actions will be popular.
Beyond that, they'd lose their own caucus members. They can't keep their handful of moderates accepting these numbers. In the Senate, they'd lose even more.
The train has wrecked, Mike. I understand you're trying to get it back on the tracks, but doing that by running to the fringe rather than to the middle is an utter recipe for disaster.
Restore the process. Bring back HB 2.
Last tip -- Shane Mason points out that the Lange and the GOP -- in their arrogance and partisanship -- have brought this on themselves.
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.
Look out, G-dub, Rick Jore is bringing unpopular back. In a recent Helena Independent-Record online poll, Jore was down 4:1. That's like Martz level approval ratings. Heck, not even any of the right-wing blogs in this state have uttered a peep in favor of Jore's appointment. The comments on the IR poll are even more damning. When all you have for supporters are people uttering statesments like this one:
Anything that can be done to stop the greedy teachers and education cartel is all right by me.
When this is who you've got left, you can probably fit your remaining supporters into a relatively small convenience store.
Keep it up, Mr. Speaker, and we'll have a solid majority in the next session.
Update -- Eric Coobs chimed in down below in comments that he supports Rick Jore completely because Jore's appointment will cause Democrats to "legislate." I think he means compromise. Whatever. The truth is my problem with Rick Jore isn't that he was appointed by the majority caucus. Most Montanans' problem with Jore isn't that he'll cause some compromise. It's that he has said that public schools are improper, described public education as welfare, and wants to destroy the school system as we know it and replace it with...wait for it...tax credits.
Those goals are way out of the mainstream. Still, it's nice to see the GOP show its true colors. Keep it up, honestly. At this rate, Hillary might actually be able to win Montana in '08 (OK, that's going a bit far).
In comments at Montana Netroots, Rocky, a moderate Republican, chimes in:
As a Republican, I can’t support the views of these gentlemen. Education is a tool toward making this world a better place. We should be working toward high quality education and greater access for all. The bare minimum should be a high school diploma. To actually succeed today, some college is a must. The cost involved with attending univrsity has gotten completely out of hand. We need to work toward making it more affordable and not taking state funds away. Does this make me a liberal education-wise?
No, Rocky -- it places you well within the mainstream in Montana. That's why independents like Moorcat are upset, moderate Democrats like Jeff Mangan are blogging about it and nothing else, and Forward Montana launched a petition on it.
There's a lot at stake here. When we've got a surplus, we've got a unique opportunity to get our education system on track. Done right -- it can be a powerful economic development tool, both for the state and for the individual Montanans moving through it.
We all know about Side Show Scott Sales recent decent into Crazy World. Appointing Rick Jore as the head of the house education committee and unfairly biasing committees to overfavor Republicans. As Matt pointed out that while Democrats make up 48% of the house, they only make up 40% of committees.
While the press doesn't seem to get what a big deal this is, the readers seem to get it. I did a quick search on the IR site since the announcement and found some interesting numbers.
Over the past 3 days there were a total of 15 letters published in the IR. Of those 15 there were 6 anti-Jore letters. 40% of the letters were on this topic, showing that it weighs heavily on the minds of Montanans. In todays IR, there is exactly one letter in support of Jore.
One of these letters stuck out as particularily brilliant.
GOP threat to schools
The Montana Republican party has announced Constitutional Party member Rick Jore is their choice to chair the Education committee in the state House of Representatives. This shows how out of touch and down right dangerous the Montana Republican Party has become.
Rick Jore does not support federal funding of public schools. Indeed, he would like to do away with the public education system all together. This is from his website (http://rickjore.com/...)
“The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or interfere with education and I will oppose all federal funds appropriated for education.”
What difference can one man make anyway? He can’t do that much harm can he? He can as the head of the education committee. What would happen to our schools without public funding? Think about it. Why does the state Republican Party want to destroy our public schools?
Shane C. Mason
This was my second letter to the editor. Does that make me famous? Seriously though, there were several that stood out to me as important views and approaches to the issue. I discuss others below the fold. However, one of the most interesting is the sole letter in support of Jore.
Forward Montana has launched a petition calling for new leadership on the House Education Committee. As Jeff Mangan notes, "While the initial appointment of Jore (C) to Chair the House Education committee was telling, to then appoint Koopman as Vice-Chair and place Butcher on the committee certainly confirms the Leadership's extremist attitude towards public education."
Forward Montana is calling on Speaker Sales to replace both Rep. Rick Jore and Rep. Roger Koopman with new leaders on the education committee.
Please, sign the petition and encourage your family and friends to do the same.
This email landed in my inbox this morning from Rep. Mike Jopek (D-Whitefish). I think it is a pretty apt description of what is happening here.
Great schools are in the economic best interest of our local communities and businesses. Both the Democrats and Republicans campaigned on pledges to make our schools even better. But did the GOP Handshake with Montana just become a finger waved at our kids and teachers? I sincerely hope not.
During the interim, I served on the House Education and Local Government committee and quickly saw a need to continue to make our public schools better. Almost all Montanans agree that the solution to educating our kids is clearly not to abolish public education.
Scott Sales thinks everyone criticizing Rick Jore needs "to take a deep breath" (sorry, Scott, I thought it was "war -- my bad). But here's the thing, the Republicans are pushing too very different messages on education. One is local control. One is making sure that money is spent in the classroom.
If locals control education, it seems to me that it is the school board and not the state legislature that should determine the ratio of administrative to classroom spending.
And, honestly, before Speaker Patton or Floor Leader Antoinette tells me to take a deep breath, they oughta go look in the mirror. I've been given no reason to believe that House GOP Leadership will even respect the fact that we have a difference of opinion, much less take the time to listen to me.
