Meet the initiatives!

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 13:20:47 PM MST

• I-161, which proposes changing how hunter access programs are funded. If voters approve the measure, it would abolish outfitter-sponsored nonresident licenses and nix the requirement that licensed outfitters supervise hunts conducted by out-of-state clients. It would also increase the cost of a nonresident big game license 43 percent and a combination deer license by 61 percent. Opponents of the initiative claim the signatures were gathered illegally.

• I-164, known as the "payday loan initiative." The measure proposes limiting the annual interest, fees and charges certain lenders may charge on loans to 36 percent.

• CI-105, which would amend the Montana Constitution to prohibit creating a new tax on the sale or transfer of property in the state.

B'birder problembear, of course, has helped gather signatures for I-164 and has written a few posts on it. I won't jinx the initative, but I can't imagine a majority of Montanans voting for 400 percent interest rates on the poor.

I have no opinion on I-161. Is it a spiteful attack on outfitters? Or a means to cut down on trophy hunting and keep permits out of the hands of wealthy hobbyists and the exclusive clubs that serve them? Anyone want to make an argument for or against that one?

And then there's CI-105. Dan Testa profiled it way back in April:

Its goal is to gather enough signatures to place Constitutional Initiative-105 on the ballot in November. If passed by voters, the measure would amend the state Constitution to prohibit the Legislature or any municipality from passing a real estate transfer tax (RETT). Such a tax can be applied to sales, inheritances or like-kind exchanges of property, and is usually imposed at the time of closing, along with other taxes or fees.

All you need to know about it is that John Sinrud's working on it, so it must fit in with some especially creepy and radical right-wing machinations.

But if guilt-by-association doesn't work for you, here's Eric Feaver with a reasoned argument against the initiative:

"CI-105 would prohibit a tax that does not exist. It would embed that prohibition in Montana's state constitution," said MEA-MFT President Eric Feaver. "It is at root an anti-government measure."

CI-105 would constitutionally prohibit a real estate transfer tax. CI-105 could also potentially prevent local governments and public schools from using local impact fees to cover the costs of new subdivisions and student enrollment growth. 

The Montana Association of Realtors is the chief group backing CI-105. "We are surprised to see the Realtors pushing a measure like this," Feaver said. "They are playing right into the hands of right-wing, anti-government groups that have worked for years to cripple Montana's public services by amending our state constitution through ballot initiatives."

"Demonizing government and taxes hurts us all. Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society."

I'm not optimistic about stopping this. It's sort of flown under the radar, for starters. For another, it's sort of a brilliant rhetorical campaign: the group organizing it is calling itself the "Coalition Against Double Taxation," a clear, negative message about the tax - which doesn't even exist - forcing opponents to defend "double taxation" and to imply they favor expanding new taxes. All of which leads me to believe that Sinrud and friends must be getting outside help on this one...

And, last, some good news: CI 102, the "personhood" amendment, that would strip Montana women of their right to privacy and define life as beginning at conception, failed miserably. This isn't the first time this has come up, of course. Back in 2007, Rick Jore tried to stick his nose into the state's vaginae in the state legislature with a bill that was too radical for the Catholic Church. The usual folks trotted the initiative out again this year, and again, the initiative couldn't find enough backers to make the ballot.

"We have barely begun the fight," says bill backer, Dr. Annie Bukacek, "we will keep working on it until their personhood is established in our Montana constitution."

"Um, Ms. Bukaceck," writes Cowgirl, "you've been working on this for three years already, it's not happening..." That probably won't dissuade Bukacek, but it does bode well for the rights of Montana women and their right to privacy.  

Natelson says stuff

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:32:46 AM MST

First off, a shot over the bows of Constitutional "originalists":

The problem with the U.S. Constitution in general is that it is not a "rigid" set of guidelines on government power, nor is it a "living, breathing organism" that liberals pretend it is.

"The answer, as often in life, is somewhere in the middle," said Natelson.

An opponent of abortion, Natelson said one day, people will see the termination of a pregnancy with the same repugnancy that they see slavery now.

"It took 100 years to end slavery," he said. "And we're not going to end abortion constitutionally. We're going to end it when people change their hearts."

The "living, breathing organism" that liberals worship is, of course, hyperbole, the kind of misrepresented and exaggerated view of liberal legal thought promulgated by conservatives, and a typical rhetorical salvo we've come to expect from the Perfesser. But...then he says the Constitution is a changing document, and that the judiciary - rightly - reacts to the values and demands of the populace. Which, you know, is pretty much...rational, not something you'd expect the Perfesser to say in front of Tea Baggers.

And it's also nice to see Natelson acknowledge that anti-abortion views are not widely reflected by most Americans, and that, to change our laws on abortion, anti-abortion activists need to change Americans' views. Which, you know, is probably something his audience didn't want to hear.

Another:

One question was steered toward the local anti-discrimation ordinance passed last week by the Missoula City Council.

Can't that law be challenged as violation of the due process provision of the 14th Amendment?

Again, said Natelson, not since the U.S. Constitution has been so radically reinterpreted.

"If the state government can point to any conceivable governmental interest in supporting its law, in this case promoting the acceptance of a certain group of people, generally the law will be upheld," he said.

(Here's the Fourteenth Amendment, by the way. I assume the questioner was assuming those who want to discriminate against gays have the right to do so under the idea that no state "shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But, funny enough, proponents of discrimination forget that gays are also protected under the same amendment.)

Essentially, Natelson is openly acknowledging that opposition to Missoula's anti-discrimination isn't based on safety issues in public bathrooms, but in not wanting to "accept" gays into civil society. And they mean by "acceptance," is gays' rights to live, work, and enjoy "...mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." In short, as Montana Justice James Nelson wrote, "...homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals, as a matter of constitutional law."

Too bad the constitution doesn't protect people from singling out law-abiding citizens and denying their basic "civil and natural rights."

Montana Nazis fundraise for anti-abortion movement

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:35:32 AM MST

According to a posting on a popular white supremacist website, Gaede said she's given to Hope Pregnancy Ministries in the past, and it is a good way to "help save White babies." She stated a fundraising mailing from the Ministries said a local donor would match all donations dollar for dollar.

Gaede's posting continued by saying she has "personally met many of these people" (Ministries' staff). She told her peers to tell staff members that they were supporters of Stormfront, the white supremacist website where Gaede made her request, when making a donation. She included the mailing address and website address for the Ministries. Gaede encouraged her fellow white supremacists to send funds, because "our local population is over 95% White so they would be pretty much guaranteed to be helping to save White babies."

Hope Pregnancy Ministries essentially set up fake medical clinics - which aren't staffed by medical professionals, but instead are created as lures to persuade pregnant women not to have abortions.

As the report points out, this isn't the first time that the anti-abortion movement and Montana white supremacists allied. Montana Right to Life endorsed self-identified Nazi state house candidate, Shawn Stuart. The organization later admitted Stuart shouldn't have been endorsed when it became clear that the National Socialist Movement supports "eugenic abortions for non-whites." MHRN:

In other words, the National Socialist Movement, like April Gaede and other white supremacists, only oppose abortion when it comes to "white babies." Otherwise, they support abortion and sterilization for women of color.

Given the views of Gaede and her peers, the Montana Human Rights Network has asked Hope Pregnancy Ministries to donate the money raised by Stormfront members to the Montana Indian Education Association.

We'll have to wait and see if Kalispell's pro-life community values fetuses of color as much as they do those that are white.

Update: Apparently saving white babies isn't the only item on Gaede's agenda: she's also interested in creating them.

Women's Health Care Sacrificed in Both Versions of the Health Care Bill

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 05:46:57 AM MST

What exactly did Congress do to your rights?  It's not good.

Senate Version:

Creates major administrative burdens for people with health plans and stigmatizes abortion care.  You wouldn't get the abortion coverage that you currently already have, unless you  wrote a separate check for the portion of the premium related to that coverage. But it also would open a new front in the legislative fight over abortion, allowing states to pass laws barring insurers from including abortion coverage in policies for individuals and small businesses. The result could be a significant setback for abortion rights in states where social conservatives dominate the legislature. It could happen in Montana. It's happened before.

Why let states ban abortion coverage just for women not lucky enough to work for an employer who provides it? That doesn't make sense.   It harms those folks who don't make a lot of money the most.  Thanks a lot Ben Nelson.

83 U.S. Senators are men.  If all the women who had ever served in the Senate since 1789 were still there we'd still only have 38.

House version:

The house version includes a total ban on abortion coverage in what's known as the "exchange."  This would make abortion coverage unavailable, as in illegal, for millions of women who already have it.  And it would prohibit people who receive "affordability credits" under the House health care bill from using those credits to purchase a policy with abortion coverage.

This amendment would inflict special punishment on those who are ready to become mothers but whose pregnancies are making their medical conditions worse. A lot of damage can be done before a woman reaches the life-threatening stage when the Stupak amendment would relent and allow payment for abortion.

Because of their health problems, these women must have their abortions in the hospital, racking up thousands of dollars in bills that destroy their families' finances. The Stupak-Pitts amendment would even prohibit an insurance company in the exchange from covering a patient's abortion if her health is in danger or if the fetus is malformed. You can read more here.

In the House, 441 members of Congress are male (83%) and 92 are female (17%).

Opposition expected to stiffen against ban on subsidized Viagra

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:51:03 AM MST

I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that)....

Given the makeup of the SCOTUS, I wouldn't make any bets...

I realize that many people disagree with my moral objections to men getting erections which God clearly doesn't want them to get, but my principles on this are more important to me than theirs are to them. So too bad. If you want a boner, pay for it yourself.

Sure, digby's jokingly responding to the justification behind Stupak amendment, and the House vote disallowing insurance purchased in the health insurance exchange from covering abortion...but, hell! She's got a point! Why does insurance cover Viagra? It's not like it actually affects any urgent medical condition...? And it certainly isn't as critical to men as abortions are to women...

But just as the members of the Republican party look to impose penalties on the rest of us that they don't feel apply to themselves, don't hold your breath that a bunch of old white guys will be preventing private insurers from paying Viagra claims...

Health care reform passes House, with gut punch

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:29:32 AM MST

First, Democrats struck a deal over healthcare to win the support of Catholic bishops by allowing an amendment to reach the House floor that would disallow any insurance passed in the health insurance exchange to cover elective abortion procedures.

Jane Hamsher: "Democrats in Congress have just proudly signed a deal...which allows a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own sexual issues to dictate access to abortion services..." Hamsher rips Planned Parenthood and NARAL for rolling over on this and other women's issues wrapped up in health care reform.

Even Ezra Klein thinks it's a bad deal:

The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

A great day for women, that started off with the Democratic women's caucus being repeatedly shouted down by Republican Congressmen on the House floor.

It's hard to jump and down and cheer for a bill with so many bad compromises in it - how did we get here? In part, I blame the group of "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats who drag their feet on Democratic policies while taking in industry donations. But those Democrats exist and wield power because the Republicans are quickly ceding their role as rational political players. They vote against every piece of legislation in Congress, and refuse to even enter negotiations in crafting legislation. The effect is particularly dire in the Senate, where Republicans so far have filibustered, or threaten to filibuster, nearly every Democratic bill or judicial nomination. As a result, the worst Senators - Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln - are having the most influence on policy.

And it might get worse. Krugman:

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration's job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing - but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here - and it's very bad for America.

Banning abortion doesn't reduce abortion rates

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:37:19 AM MST

On the other hand, making contraceptives widely available actually reduces unwanted pregnancies and, surprisingly enough!, abortions.

The best way to reduce abortions is not to criminalize them, but to provide women with good, affordable, and effective health care that includes neo-natal care and access to contraceptives. And if you really wanted to bite into the numbers, you should consider funding job training programs, beef up college assistance, and provide assistance for daycare. Well funded drug rehabilitation programs would probably help, too.

But we have tax cuts to hand out to major corporations!

Thought You All Could Use Some Good News on Health Care Reform

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 22:13:06 PM MST

Hatch wanted an amendment to eliminate a major compromise that let private insurance companies continue to cover abortion care but not fund coverage for this care under any government or public option. He also proposed an amendment to prohibit all private companies participating in health insurance exchanges from providing coverage for abortion care.

Thanks Max for standing by women is this fight to retain our current benefits and for your help keeping these private decisions in the hands of women, families, and doctors.  

For now, women can continue to make these tough decisions based on our own moral beliefs and medical needs--not Orrin Hatch's.

Are Florida's religious extremists similar to Montana's?

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 17:58:03 PM MST

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!

Who's the criminal?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 13:57:14 PM MST

...Dr. Warren Hern leaves no window uncovered.

Full-length blinds shroud the bulletproof entryway; in his office, vinyl shades block a small window.

This is one of the facts of Hern's life -- no windows, ever. That was how Dr. Barnett Slepian's killer shot him in upstate New York, through a kitchen window. Slepian, like Hern, performed abortions.

"I can't sit in front of an open window. The shades have to be drawn," Hern said.

After Slepian's shooting in 1998, Hern predicted another would follow. "Will I get to live out my life?" he asked in a newspaper column in 2001. ". . . Who's next?"

And this is the comment from the local pro-life movement:

Bob Enyart, spokesman for Colorado Right to Life, which has demonstrated against Hern for decades, said that although his group doesn't condone Tiller's slaying, abortion providers should expect that violence begets violence.

"If a Mafia hit man gets killed, people recognize it's an occupational hazard," he said.

Remember, abortion is a legal and often necessary medical procedure. Scott Roeder, member of Operation Rescue, with links to the Army of God, murdered a man on the steps of his church. You tell me which person here resembles a hit man. You tell me which groups are using violence to intimidate its political opponents.

Meanwhile, Roeder himself is shocked - shocked! - that he's being treated "like a criminal" by Kansas officials. I guess he expected the pro-life's version of forty virgins or something...

The problem is religious extremism

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 11:30:21 AM MST

The suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, had changed his name from Carlos Leon Bledsoe after converting to the Muslim faith....

It was not known what path Muhammad, a U.S. citizen who is a recent convert to Islam, had followed to radicalization.

My thoughts and condolences go out to the family and friends of the slain soldiers, William Long and Quinton Ezeagwula. Ezeagwula was 18.

Obviously, these killings were no less a terrorist act than the shooting of Tiller.

The lesson to take away here is that religious extremism is the problem, not any particular religion, whether it's Christianity or Islam. And just as commenters are quick to damn the mullahs that filled Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammed with the hatred that led him to take the lives of two men, so should we be decrying those that fuel the hatred and violence within the extremist wing of the anti-abortion movement.

Still, you read stuff like William Saletan's piece in Slate, "Is it wrong to murder an abortionist?" or Operation Rescue's Randall Terry's statement on Tiller's murder, and you realize just deeply embedded the double-standard on right-wing terror is for many conservatives. Can you imagine how a defense of Muhammad's murders would sound if written in the same logic? That the soldiers deserved to die because of..well...choose your rhetorical hyperbole. (For an antidote to the Saletan op-ed, check out Feministe's Jill reminding us that Tiller provided legal, legitimate health care, and the AmPro's Michelle Goldberg's piece on what late-term abortion is really like.)

This may be news for some, but we are a democratic society governed by law. Those that seek to dismantle our social structure and community standards with a gun deserve neither encouragement nor support. Period.

Terrorist strikes in Kansas

by: Jay Stevens

Sun May 31, 2009 at 20:55:53 PM MST

President Obama said this afternoon that he was "shocked and outraged" by the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller, who was shot while attending church in east Wichita.

Tiller's clinic was often a target of abortion protesters. His clinic was blocked by protesters during the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" and bombed in 1986. Tiller himself was shot earlier in 1993 by an anti-abortion activist.

The suspect in this case - Scott Roeder - is an anti-tax extremist who was convicted and sentenced for building bombs, and was a member of Operation Rescue. I'm guessing Tiller was killed for political reasons, which pretty much is the definition of "terror." In fact, as Jon Perr points out, "Tiller's suspected assassin Scott Roeder is a poster child for precisely the kind of the anti-government extremism detailed in the recent DHS report on right-wing terror threats..."

Hey Dan McGee, is this your idea of "civil war"?

NARAL has a fact sheet on violence against abortion providers (pdf), and there hasn't been a murder since 1998, when Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed in his home by James Kopp. Anti-abortion terror was at a pretty high level during the 1990s, during the Clinton administration. Let's hope another Democratic administration doesn't re-up the terror activity of anti-abortion extremists.

Matthew Yglesias wrote a smart thing about this kind of right-wing extremism:

Random murder of civilians in order to coerce political concessions doesn't have a great track-record. But direct action terrorist violence against abortion providers has, I think, proven to be a fairly successful tactic. Every time you murder a doctor, you create a disincentive for other medical professionals to provide these services. What's more, you create a need for additional security at facilities around the country. In addition, the anti-abortion protestors who frequently gather near clinics are made to seem much more intimidating by the fact that the occurrence of these sorts of acts of violence.

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the efficacy of violence as a political tactic. But in this particular case, I think people tend to understate it.

Absolutely true. If you've ever been in a clinic that does family planning services, you know what he means. Security, bulletproof doors, etc & co. I know that clinic workers face an unrelenting barrage of threats and intimidation on a near-daily basis. And that's not even considering how intimidating it is to go into one of these places, especially when there's a pack of protesters outside.

Very few anti-abortion activists are violent. But the violence in the movement makes even peaceful demonstrations threatening. Especially when you read stuff like this:

I can't escape the conclusion that killing Tiller was the right thing to do. I am uncomfortable with this conclusion because it's dangerous. But nevertheless, it was the ethical thing to do. Tiller would have continued to take numerous lives. Nothing was going to stop him. So someone did stop him. And now fewer lives will be taken.

Here we go again...

by: Jay Stevens

Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:59:20 AM MST

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.

It's the sex, stupid

by: Jay Stevens

Tue May 19, 2009 at 06:01:45 AM MST

...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.  

Between a rock and a hard place...

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:22:05 AM MST

But at the National Abortion Federation, a hotline for women seeking abortion information has been "ringing off the hook," according to the group's president, Vicki Saporta.

"We are currently getting more calls from women who report that they or their partner have recently lost their job, and we are also hearing from more women facing eviction," she said.

One recent inquiry came from a 24-year-old married woman in Colorado who was evicted after her landlord went into foreclosure. Another came from a 32-year-old pregnant mother in Virginia who had lost her job and health insurance.

"As more and more women and families are struggling due to the crisis, it's affecting more than just low-income families. Now more middle-class and working class families are facing the types problems that we've heard from low-income women," Saporta said.

As with many other nonprofits, abortion assistance groups are being inundated with requests for aid just as funding is drying up.

It'll be interesting to see conservatives contort themselves opposing abortion and health care reform, because apparently they're inversely related.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, the best way to reduce abortion is to improve access to health care and day care. Certainly the answer isn't to use the state to impose draconian, 14th-century morality on the people. And, h*ll, that didn't work too well back in the 14th century, either...

"Whatsoever goeth upon its belly..."

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 08:47:39 AM MST

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!

Classy.

Encouraging the crazies

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 19:48:08 PM MST

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?

John Cole, in a post entitled "Glenn Beck's America":

...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?

Dan McGee wrestles with his fantasy life

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 08:09:00 AM MST

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...

Update: In the comments, Allyson pointed out even more hysterical rhetoric from McGee:

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!

Unbelievable.

Shockley's vendetta

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 13:44:52 PM MST

According to city court records, protester Cathy Kulonis was charged with disorderly conduct for blocking the pathway of volunteer escort Carol Marsh outside Blue Mountain Clinic on September 12, 2007. But it was Marsh who initiated contact, allegedly inadvertently. The case was dismissed.

As clinic director Anita Kuennen describes the incident, Marsh was forced to step off the sidewalk to avoid Kulonis and "lost her balance and brushed up against her."

Shockley-the attorney who represented Kulonis-says the "brushed up against" was more of a "plowing into." In any case, he concluded protesters need a buffer, too.

Marsh had to "step off the sidewalk"? Seems clear that the protesters were overstepping their bounds and deserved to be found at fault. So...why might Shockley want to pass this bill? Other than, perhaps, to satisfy a personal vendetta against the court that ruled against him?

Missoula Blue Mountain Clinic director, Anita Kuennen: " Honestly, I think it's a bogus attempt at trying to make it seem like we're the aggressors in the situation."

Basically the bill seeks to use the law to equate clinic worker and patient behavior with the confrontational style of abortion protesters. Between clinic bombings, assassination of health care providers, and the anti-abortion crowd's former tactic of trying to barricade health care clinics, there's actually a need for a "bubble bill."

But this bill doesn't solve a problem, it's a gimmick. Do we really need laws to fulfill the fevered fantasies of anti-abortion extremists? Naturally this is a time for those self-proclaimed opponents of big and intrusive government to step forward, don't you think?

I won't hold my breath.

More Children! Less Health Care!

by: Matt Singer

Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:19:14 AM MST

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.