Montana Personhood Amendment Fails To Get Signatures

Personhood for fertilized eggs with not be on the Montana ballot this year due to a lack of signatures supporting an amendment.  Supporters of the amendment were 12,000 signatures under the necessary number of valid, registered voter signatures needed to add an amendment vote to the 2010 ballot.
KFBB News reports:

CI-102 will again fell short of the required 48,764 signatures needed to appear on the November ballot with only 36, 376 signatures gathered.

The pro-life ballot issue would have made it legal for a woman to be criminally investigated for miscarriage and would have banned certain methods of birth control. CI-102 would have led to a complete ban on abortion with no exceptions.

Planned Parenthood of Montana says that CI-102 would have undermined the state’s 40-year-old constitutional right to privacy.

Colorado, who was able to get a Personhood amendment on the ballot this year, began launching their campaign to amend the state constitution yesterday.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • crowepps

    I’m sure there is an opposition gearing up in Colorado to oppose the amendment — any links to them available?

  • robin-marty
  • crowepps

    “This is a critical issue. Anyone who now takes care of a woman [if the amendment were to pass] would have a very different equation. Let’s say that if a woman has a tubal pregnancy; sometimes there is even a heartbeat. That pregnancy can rupture and the woman can die,” Surrey said. “Well, if I go in and remove the tubal pregnancy to save the woman’s life, have I committed a crime because I am practicing normal medical care?”


    Jones says that’s one of the scare tactics. As long as a doctor did what they could to save the life of the child while working to save the life of the mother, he says, then there would be no liability attached to them

    Mr. Jones seems to be totally unaware that in the particular case of ectopic pregnancy there is NOTHING the doctor can do “to save the life of the child” and his suggestion that the doctor should be attempting something leaves the doctor exactly where the doctor states he is, unsure if he can go by normal protocols which define the fetus BY DIAGNOSIS as doomed.


    Mr. Jones’ obvious massive ignorance about the realities of reproduction and medical care make him unfit to draft laws affecting either.

  • arekushieru

    He also seems to be unaware that this puts the woman’s life at further risk.  Although it SHOULD be obvious.

  • crowepps

    Risking women’s lives doesn’t even seem to be on his radar screen. After all, if they weren’t ‘bad’ women then God would ensure they don’t have any complications, right? So if something goes wrong it’s probably all their own fault.

  • arekushieru

    The depths to which these people can sink never ceases to amaze me, I guess…?

  • crowepps

    I find it hard to believe anybody could be that stupid — I mean, he’s got DOCTORS telling him there’s a real problem with his Big Idea and he’s all, poo-poo, that won’t happen, everybody’s just trying to SCARE people by pointing out that we’re jumping off a cliff.


    I remember back quite a few years when obstetricians in, I think, Florida, staggering under the weight of outrageous malpractice insurance, refused to accept as patients anyone who was or whose husband was a lawyer, and the outraged screams from the legal profession about ‘What are we supposed to do?  When we sue it’s ‘just business’ and our wives are entitled to medical care’.


    If I were an obstetrician, I would sure be wary of having patients from the families of ProLife extremists on the basis that their obsessions would make it difficult to provide good medical care.  Let him deliver his babies himself and see how to all works, or doesn’t work, in real life.