by Rachel Bartlett, Stevensville
I would like to remind those who think abortion is fine to consider a statistic that may surprise you. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, approximately 60 million babies have been aborted. Should this make us proud?
Our Constitution States that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Isn’t it strange that a group of men who were not Christians could devise such a law that in essence is so Christian? However, our founding fathers were Deists. They believed in the moral law. Abortion is a moral issue. It is the single most important issue that is at the root of all the divisiveness in our country. A country that promotes a culture of death cannot and will not survive.
Selling baby parts has become an industry. The older the baby, the more he is worth on the market. What is to stop abortionists from changing the laws to killing babies into the ninth month to exact a better price for their immoral business?
As human beings we need to hang our heads in shame for allowing this heinous crime to exist. No one has a right to kill the most vulnerable in our society. That baby is a person at the moment of conception or fertilization. He or she is human and has all the DNA markers of his or her parents. We can’t deny the personhood of that beautiful child.
Montana already has abortion rights. Those rights were given to the states after the demise of Roe v. Wade. What CI-128 does expands abortion rights to a radical agenda that no rational human being can justify. It allows a young girl to be taken for an abortion without her parent’s consent or knowledge. It gives the abortion provider unlimited power over the lives of those who are seeking abortions. It makes abortion providers unaccountable for the safety and health of the women seeking abortion and does not allow the women to sue for damages as a result of a botched abortion. It enshrines CI-128 in Montana’s Constitution which entirely changes Montana’s culture. Also it will be our tax dollars that are used to pay for abortions for women who travel to Montana from other states seeking an abortion. Does this sound like an initiative that is in our best interest?
When you mark your ballot this November, think long and hard about the ramifications of your choice. VOTE NO to CI-128 to protect life and for the country you love.
hsabin says
Here WMA – read this conclusion of a long explanation of the CI 128 amendment proposal:
Professor Robert Natelson, (articleVinfocentercom), author, law professor and historian has written an analysis on why CI 128 is the worst one he has ever seen.
https://i2i.org/major-problems-in-montanas-ci-128-the-abortion-initiative/
Here is his conclusion: he cites many defects in the initiative…
CI-128 is risky because:
It does not protect health and safety;
it allows children and mentally-incompetent people to make health care decisions without the consent—or even the input—of their parents and guardians;
it threatens to convert Montana into a refuge for unscrupulous, unlicensed quacks who cannot obtain or retain licenses in other states; and
it contains vague and unusual language that can be used to advance the “gender fluidity” program. In other words, CI-128, if enacted, could be used as a legal wedge for child mutilation and the invasion of women’s sports by biological males.
WMA says
Helen,
Please point out the gender fluidity part. I missed that.
Gomez says
WMA. It’s almost as if when you ask someone to support their claim with evidence that they don’t actually have any evidence, and they just made it up. In other words they lied. Then of course they always have to throw in, “I’m not the liar! You’re the liar!”. Lol 🙂
hsabin says
Rachel – Professor Robert Natelson, (articleVinfocentercom), author, law professor and historian has written an analysis on why CI 128 is the worst one he has ever seen.
https://i2i.org/major-problems-in-montanas-ci-128-the-abortion-initiative/
Here is his conclusion: he cites many defects in the initiative…CI-128 is risky because:
It does not protect health and safety;
it allows children and mentally-incompetent people to make health care decisions without the consent—or even the input—of their parents and guardians;
it threatens to convert Montana into a refuge for unscrupulous, unlicensed quacks who cannot obtain or retain licenses in other states; and
it contains vague and unusual language that can be used to advance the “gender fluidity” program. In other words, CI-128, if enacted, could be used as a legal wedge for child mutilation and the invasion of women’s sports by biological males.
WMA says
The complete text of CI 128.
Good luck finding the hellscape the letter writer claims.
THE COMPLETE TEXT OF CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE NO. 128 (CI-128)
Article II of the Montana Constitution is amended to read:
Section 36. Right to make decisions about pregnancy.
(1) There is a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right
to abortion. This right shall not be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling
government interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
The government may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability provided that in
no circumstance shall the government deny or burden access to an abortion that, in the good
faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or
health of the pregnant patient.
The government shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against a person
based on the person’s actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes. The
government shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against a person for
aiding or assisting another person in exercising their right to make and carry out decisions about
their pregnancy with their voluntary consent.
For purposes of this section:
(a) (3) (4) (b) A government interest is “compelling” only if it clearly and convincingly addresses a
medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk to a pregnant patient and does not
infringe on the patient’s autonomous decision making.
“Fetal viability” means the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a
treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a
significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.
END