Dan McGee: no right to privacy for pregnant women

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 08:44:44 AM MST

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?

Enquiring minds want to know...

Pledge-a-picketer!

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:48:44 PM MST

So, what's a health care provider to do?

Turn the protests into a fundraising opportunity!

On Monday, February 2nd, precisely sixteen years after she opened her Bozeman clinic, back in 1993, Mountain Country Women's Clinic again opens its doors, this time in downtown Livingston. It is a moment of triumph and satisfaction, achieved with the support of many people. It is also a moment of tension. Not only has Susan incurred significant personal debt in a very uncertain economy, but the usual voices of dissent are echoing in letters to the editor and in anti-choice picketers appearing on Main Street in Livingston, protesting the existence of Sue's legal services. Even before the doors opened, protesters walked the sidewalks outside. Also, even before the doors opened, women were calling Sue to make appointments.

The need for a compassionate, professional, and thorough women's clinic is as great as ever....

I propose to begin a Pledge-A-Picketer Campaign in support of Mountain Country Women's Clinic. The concept is simple....Each of us signs on to donate, say, $1/picketer to Susan's clinic. If, over the period of a week, 17 picketers parade on Main Street, we each send a check for $17. It isn't much, but if $17 gets multiplied by 50 people, it comes to $850. If 100 people send in checks, we raise $1,700.

At the end of the week, Susan posts a sign on the clinic window. It might say, THANK YOU PICKETERS. THIS WEEK THE SUPPORTERS OF MOUNTAIN COUNTRY WOMEN'S CLINIC RAISED $850 IN THEIR PLEDGE-A-PICKETER CAMPAIGN. THESE FUNDS WILL HELP INDIGENT PATIENTS IN NEED OF OUR SERVICES. THE MORE YOU PICKET, THE MORE SUPPORT MCWC RECEIVES.

Click on the link to find contact information on how you can pledge...

Children's health care, hate crimes, and abortion at the Montana legislature

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 10:59:36 AM MST

What's HB 157, you ask? Why, it's the bill that implements the expansion of CHIP, as dictated by the "Healthy Montana Kids" initiative that Montanans passed this passed election.

Oh, you say, yawn. Of course it passed.

Wait! There had been an amendment inserted to the bill that would have stripped "preemptive eligibility" from the law.

Er, what?

Preemptive eligibility -- that's a provision that allows applicants (that is, children) to receive health care insurance during the three months it takes to verify that the family meet the program's eligibility standards. Apparently someone thought -- hey! They've been without insurance this long...what's another three months? and slipped in an amendment.

The good news is that the amendment striking down preemptive eligibility was withdraw, and the bill is now headed to the floor.

Those three votes against HB 157 in the Appropriations Committee? Ray Hawk, Roy Hollandsworth, and Dave Kasten all voted against the bill.

Bad news from the legislature on equal representation before the law: SB 223 was tabled in committee.   Gary Perry, Jim Shockley, Aubyn Curtiss, John Esp, Greg Hinkle, Dan McGee, and Terry Murphy voted to deliberately exclude gays and lesbians from Montana's existing hate crimes statute.

And a quick note on SB 46 -- Dan McGee's ballot initiative, which will be heard before the Judiciary Committee on February 11 -- which adds, "the protection of unborn human life is a compelling state interest," after "the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."

A couple of thoughts. First, abortion was deemed a right of women under Roe v. Wade due to privacy concerns. McGee's bill is striking directly at that decision. It's an obvious attempt to criminalize abortion.

Second, basically what McGee is saying, is that a woman, if pregnant, has no right to be free from state control. A radical, like Rick Jore, would probably argue that the state has power over all women of child-bearing age, as he considers life to begin at conception. That is, the state has a vested interest in women's sex lives.

"...giving fetuses rights that supersede those of the expectant mother..."

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 22:56:32 PM MST

Check out this bill pending in the Virginia state legislature that requires all fetal deaths must be reported to "the local or state police or sheriff's department."

And that's in a society where abortion is legal.

(Hat tip, Dan Savage.)

Facebook sends hatemail to Georgia

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 20:43:40 PM MST

Landeros denies he sent the message and claims it's against his nature and political beliefs to espouse a view like that. Although opposed to abortion, Landeros apparently doesn't believe in criminalizing it.

Landeros is an avowed Ron Paul supporter, and Paul's unabashedly against abortion, even criminalizing it, and doesn't see that as a conflict wth his views on individual liberty. Paul's supporters are also known for being outspoken online -- which is to say, in your face and aggressive. Still, I'm implying guilt by association by just writing that; I've never met Landeros, much less got into it over politics with him, and I've no evidence or reason to believe the dude's lying.

Keep in mind that, while Facebook is password-protected, it's not exactly known as extremely secure. It is possible to steal Facebook passwords off of, say, an unencrypted wireless connection. Like, say, at a cafe's wireless connection. Or the library. Or your home wireless network if it's not protected with a security key. Also, someone close to Landeros could have gotten his password or used his computer -- a lot of folks save their passwords for authenticated sessions on their computers -- and sent the message.

In short, reasonable scenarios exist that support Landeros' explanation.

Weird story, tho', eh? Here's hoping that, if he didn't do it, the kid doesn't catch a heap of sh*t over it.

On Palin, experience, ability, and Judy Martz

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 22:25:53 PM MST

First of all, it's pretty amusing watching the right backtrack and redefine what "experience" means in context of a presidential election. Palin's half-term of governorship of a state with 600,000 people and mayoral term over a city of some 8,000 is suddenly being touted as legitimate experience, and any contest of those claims is hating on small states and towns.

Dave Crisp already caught the irony:

As good Republicans have repeatedly warned me, these are serious times, the front lines of an international struggle against Islamofascism, a time when sober reflection and serious military, foreign policy and diplomatic experience were vitally needed. Obama didn't stack up, no matter how pretty his words.

Friday morning, all of that changed. It wasn't experience we needed, I learned, it was an authentic American biography, a feisty political history, a deep pro-life commitment. Foreign policy experience? Hey, she lives just across the Bering Strait from Siberia. Legislative experience? Hey, she was ordering potholes fixed in Alaska before Obama ever ran for office. Washington experience? Hey, haven't you heard that politics is the only profession in which experience counts against you?

Convention watch: a woman's right to abortion

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 16:35:56 PM MST

As Steve Benen points out, the language was included to satisfy some religious leaders who are uncomfortable with hardline pro-choice language that defend a woman's right to abortions, without any nod to preventing or reducing abortion.

I'm delighted with the language. In it lives the path to the third way on the issue of abortion: ensuring that it's legal and available, but recognizing that abortions should be decreased, and providing the health care and education options to Americans that does just that.

This has been something kicking around the Democratic party for some time, and Hillary Clinton has been working on. Way back in the dark ages of 2006, Clinton and Sen. Harry Reid co-authored an editorial that sets out the intellectual basis for this third way; and as Sara pointed out in the comments, such legislation was introduced into the Senate by Reid in 2005.

Creating a good health care system that addresses all women, regardless of economic class, that provides day care services, drug treatment programs, job training programs, and real sex ed and makes contraceptives available, would have a real effect on the number of abortions and would improve the health and well being of Americans in general.

In any case, such beliefs stand in stark contrast to the legislation proposed by the anti-abortion extremists, eh?

CI-100 Will Not Qualify for the Ballot

by: Matt Singer

Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:21:22 PM MST

This is a big victory for the pro-choice movement in Montana -- so hats off to them.

It's also good news for progressives of all stripes headed into this fall. Increasingly, one has to wonder just what exactly will motivate a conservative to turn out to the polls -- John McCain, Bob Kelleher?

Catholics opt out of CI-100

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 14:49:43 PM MST

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.

The Hidden Effects of the Jore Amendment

by: Matt Singer

Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 15:53:04 PM MST

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.

Would you entrust your vagina to this man?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 10:34:45 AM MST

One word: ugh.

Anti-Choice, Overly "Logical"

by: V

Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:11:13 AM MST

The question, of course, is when does life begin?  More concerned with denying religious undertones than exploring the question in any serious way, his analysis of the big question damns those who would base their position on religion but offers no alternative.  There is no mention that the scientific debate over the beginning of life is mightily live.  This is odd, given Barnett's staunchly anti-religious--he calls this logic-based--opposition.  Usually, when we are unsatisfied with an answer that one perspective gives us, we look to alternative perspectives before tossing hands in the air. 

Not so, for this columnist.  He starts his real answer by stating that we just don't/can't know when life begins.  Does this really ring true, though?  There are dozens or hundreds or thousands of religionist (or not) anti-choice zealots who are willing to bomb clinics because they do know when life begins.  There are an equal number of pro-choice militarists--although, I have yet to read about a bombed church, under the pro-choice banner.  Point being, individuals do have an answer to this question.  Even Barnett devulges a sinking suspicion that life begins at conception.  He uses the fact that individuals answers are different as a pretext for arguing a safer-course:

Because we don't know where life begins, the only logical thing to do is to err on the side of caution -- the side of life. In other words, because an abortion might take an innocent life, it should be avoided. It should also be illegal in most cases.

To bolster his point, (I have to admit here that this is my favorite part of the column, because it is so devilishly put) he responds to the question unasked:

Some may respond to this logic by asking, "Who are you to foist your values on others?" That's a common question in the abortion debate, and yet it has no rightful place in the argument. It's the precise moral and logical equivalent of antebellum Southerners saying that blacks weren't human beings, and that slavery opponents had no right to even question their peculiar institution. History has judged that argument harshly, and rightly so.

Brilliant, no?  Is that really the question you had?  Of course it is not.  Your question was how in the hell is this the safer-course?  The unfortunate answer for Barnett is that it isn't.  The safest course would be to let people inform themselves, based on science or whatever they think is informative on the question and choose for themselves.  Notice that I have not envoked God or even science to come to this conclusion.  Rather, I recognize that choice should involve religion or science or whatever informs the woman's values and everything that her doctor thinks is medically relevant.

Roe v. Wade stands for a similar point, even in it's now diminished form.  People, not governments or religionists or seculars or scientists, should be in control of this most private part of their bodies.  The choice is and should be theirs.