Montana Pushes For Fertilized Egg As Person Ballot Amendment


The state of Montana is about as “Get your hands off me, government!” as they come, which is why a ballot initiative that would allow new laws banninb abortion, some forms of birth control, and fertility treatments seems oddly placed. But that’s not stopping the so-called “Personhood” movement from trying it anyway.

Via Women Are Watching:

Opponents of women’s health in Montana are pushing for a new so-called “personhood” amendment (CI-108) currently seeking qualification for the November, 2012 ballot. If this initiative makes it to the November ballot and is passed, it would define “personhood” under the Montana Constitution as beginning at the moment of fertilization. So, fertilized eggs would be granted full rights and privileges delineated in the state constitution.

Voters should be skeptical of this initiative, which goes too far in meddling with the personal lives of Montanans. At a time when the government should be focused on jobs and the economy, issues like CI-108 do nothing but divert attention from the real concerns of Montanans while interfering with families’ most private decisions. Voters should be skeptical of CI-108 because it has no exception for rape or incest. In fact, it could outlaw everything from birth control to in vitro fertilization to stem cell research.

So far, every attempt to pass fertilized egg as a person bills via constitutional amendment has failed. 

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • rachael-vinyard

    ugh, I had hope we were done with these stupid things.

  • rachael-vinyard

    ugh, I had hoped we were done with these stupid things.

  • asnnbrg

    Hope to goodness they start prosecuting babies when their mothers die in childbirth, then. It’s only fair.

  • colleen

    They aren’t going to stop. They need a cheap and desperate labor force and how better to accomplish that aim than by reducing women to the social status of disposible breeding livestock and not holding (white) men responsible for anything, least of all their sexual proclivities.

  • wildthing

    If a woman is threatened with a risk to their life and health from childbirth and pregnancy due to another person invading their body then they should have a right to self defense as in a made my day law. No person should be forced to risk their lives, no matter what the risk is, against their will.  By health one must also consider some womans lives are changed forever and disabled by the hormonal effects of going through child birth.

  • ack

    I’ve always thought that we should start using self-defense laws to support abortion rights. If I can shoot someone for coming onto my property and making me afraid, pregnant people have every right to terminate pregnancies. ESPECIALLY considering the lengthy list of potential complications and injuries. Even without personhood laws, pregnant people have the right to defend themselves.

     

    I desperately hope I never have pregnancy complications that threaten my health or life, but if I do and I need an abortion, I’m suing the shit out of Arizona for the 20 week ban.

  • julie-watkins

    Here’s the case of a black man in jail for years in a southern state for killing a white man in self defense. The police origianlly agreed with him it was justified and didn’t charge him. Then nearly a year later, he’s charged & lost at trial.

    http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/the-cost-of-self-defense-the-john-mcneil-story

     

    Basically, claiming self-defense won’t work if more powerful people are against you.