Bullock to let anti-abortion bill become law to block similar measure before it hits the ballot

Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock plans to let a bill become law that would require underage teenage girls to get notarized parental consent before they could get an abortion.

Pro-choice advocates are cheering the move because they say it will allow them to immediately challenge the measure in court long before an identical measure get to the ballot in 2014.

The bill, House Bill 391, by Rep. Jerry Bennett, passed the Senate on a 30-20 vote and was transmitted Bullock’s office on April 15. By law the governor has 10 days after a bill gets to his desk to sign it into law, veto it, or let it become law without his signature.  The deadline for HB391 is today.

Anti-abortion Republicans anticipated that Bullock, a pro-choice Democrat, would veto  the measure so they also passed HB521, a legislative referendum virtually identical to HB391 that would put the question to voters in November.

By allowing HB391 to become law, supporters of abortion rights say they can immediately challenge the law in court without waiting 14 months for voters to decide.

Opponents of the parental consent bill say it would put pregnant teen girls who come from dangerous or abusive homes at risk.

“Today the Governor did what is necessary so that the courts may swiftly protect the health and safety of all Montana’s families. We commend the governor for doing what is right for Montana families,” Kelsen Young, executive director for the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, in a statement.

Stacey Anderson, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Montana said the group is committed to supporting parents as the primary “sexuality educators” of children, but she said no state law should force a teen to talk to parents about private matters.

“Laws like this can’t force teens to talk to their parents, and the sad truth is some teens live in dangerous homes and can’t go to their parents,” Anderson said.

Opponents of parental consent for abortions said the bill and the referendum are unconstitutional and will likely be struck down by the courts. They point to a similar law the courts struck down in 1995 because it violates the Montana Constitution’s strong privacy rights.

Niki Zupanic, Public Policy Director for the ACLU of Montana, said Bullock letting the bill become law was the right thing to do.

“We fought this bill in the Legislature and now we will fight it in the courts,” Zupanic said.  “The Governor has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of all Montana’s families, and that’s exactly what he did today.”

Helena IR bars Planned Parenthood from Health Fair

About a dozen picketers demonstrated outside the Helena Civic Center Thursday to protest the Helena Independent Record newspaper's decision to bar Planned Parenthood of Montana from participating in a health fair.

Demonstrators held signs that read "The Helena IR bans Planned Parenthood from health fair," and "I stand with Planned Parenthood."

Stacey Anderson, Planned Parenthood public affairs director, said her organization was initially invited to join the more than 60 health and wellness businesses and organizations exhibiting at the event fifth annual event.

"Then about a week ago they walked the check back to our office," Anderson said. "They said they decided not to let either side exhibit."

"Either side," Anderson explained, meant anti-abortion groups and pro-abortion rights groups.

Anderson said Planned Parenthood provides a variety of family planning, medical, counseling and educational services to women, including abortion services. Last year the Helena Planned Parenthood clinic served 1,685 clients, most of whom are low-income individuals.

Questions directed to the Independent Record regarding the decision to bar Planned Parenthood from the health fair were directed to publisher Randy Rickman. Rickman did not returned repeated phone calls seeking comment.

"We are deeply disappointed that our local paper is choosing to censor our community, our providers and dismiss our patients," Anderson said.

This is not the first time Planned Parenthood and the Independent Record have publically clashed.

In May 2010 Rickman penned a controversial editorial supporting the Oklahoma Legislature's passage of a bill that requires women to get an ultrasounds and hear a detailed description of the fetus prior to an abortion.

Pro-abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood, blasted Rickman for the piece.

"We’ve had challenges with the IR in the past months and had hoped that after our staff met with the publisher and editorial board that a greater understanding of the breadth of our services would have prevailed," Anderson said. “Anti-choice sentiment and politicization should not weaken our ability to advocate for our patients or have access to the only newspaper in Helena."

GOP Rep’s “Cattle” comment draws ire of female lawmakers

Three female senators have demanded a public apology from Rep. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, for comments he made comparing women to livestock and property during testimony on a bill that would criminalize offenses involving death to an unborn child.

Senate Majority Leader Carol Williams, Minority whip Kim Gillan, and Sen. Lynda Moss, all Democrats, sent a letter to Republican leaders Tuesday saying that Regier’s comments were “offensive, unacceptable, and embarrassing to our Legislature.”

Regier made the comments several times throughout the session in support of House Bill 167, saying that under Montana law the state recognizes the value of unfinished houses and pregnant cows, but does not recognize the value of unborn babies:

“Ranchers refer to cows as either preg-tested or open,” Regier told the House Judiciary Committee in January. “A preg-tested cow is a cow that has been tested by a veterinarian and confirmed to be pregnant. Open cows are not pregnant.  Preg-tested cows bring a higher value than open cows. Why? Because the the calf the cow is carrying has a value even though it isn’t complete yet.

“If unfinished buildings and unborn calves have value in Montana, shouldn’t unborn children have a value? Your support of HB167 will show support to all pregnant women in Montana.”

Regier made the same comments on the House floor in January and  again in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

The three Democratic female lawmakers said the comments “disrespect the hard work of our female legislators and constituents,” and they asked Senate President Jim Peterson and House Speaker Mike Milburn to censure Regier under joint House and Senate rules.

“We do not place price tags on women in the same way that we do on cattle—and a woman’s worth is not valued based on whether or not she is pregnant,” the female lawmakers wrote.  “Today is the 100th Annual International Women’s Day. Women in Montana make up a majority of our constituents and play an important role in our state. Representatives Regier’s remarks have gone too far.”

The letter also requests that GOP leaders direct Regier to “apologize to the Senate, House, and the women of Montana.

“Representative Regier’s analogy was offensive, an insult to all female legislators, to all women in Montana, and to the decorum of our body,” they wrote.

UPDATE: Chris Shipp, spokesman for the House Republicans, issued the following statement in an e-mail late Tuesday:

“Unfortunately Senate Democrats are more concerned with slinging mud and misrepresenting the statements of fellow legislators. Republicans remain focused on creating opportunities for more jobs in Montana and passing common-sense legislation such as HB 167. This leaves us little time to get in a war of words.
Next thing you know, Senate Democrats are going to issue a statement condemning our state's greatest female legislator, Republican Jeanette Rankin, for saying ‘Women remind me of the cows on our ranch in Montana. A cow has a calf and after a while a man comes along and takes the calf away.’”

Some abortion foes urge supporter to NOT sign CI-102 petition at the polls

As I reported in today’s Tribune, voters heading to the polls today to cast their ballots in the primary election will be greeted by signature gatherers at many polling locations throughout Montana.

Supporters of various constitutional and statutory initiatives will be out in force trying to gather the required number of voter signatures to qualify their measures for the November ballot. The deadline for signature gathering is June 18.

One of the groups planning to take advantage of today's election to gather more signatures is the Montana Pro-Life Coalition, a group working to ban abortion.

"Polling places are public forums that provide a great opportunity to gather signatures and explain the pro-life position," Kalispell physician Annie Bukacek, of the Montana Pro-Life Coalition, said in a statement last week.

Bukacek, who declined an interview request for this story, is the sponsor of CI-102, an initiative aimed at outlawing abortion by defining a "person" as including all human beings "from the beginning of the biological development."

She participated in a similar ballot initiative in 2008.

In an e-mail to supporters, Bukacek warned CI-102 signature gathers and supporters to learn from the experiences of the last primary election.

"In 2008, many of those hired to oppose us were belligerent, some made false accusation to election judges and misinformed the police," Bukacek said. "We have taken precautions to improve the experience of pro-life signature gatherers by communicating with law enforcement beforehand."

But this time around it's not just pro-abortion rights groups that are opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

I blogged about this division last year shortly after the Montana Pro-Life Coalition announced the CI-102 campaign.

Anti-abortion groups such as the Right to Life of Montana and the Montana Catholic Conference are urging their supporters to stay away from CI-102.

In a letter posted on Right to Life of Montana's website, executive director Gregg Trude called the proposed amendment "a serious tactical mistake" in the fight to end abortion:

"The Montana Personhood Amendment people have an agenda. They have not shown a good faith intention to develop a true coalition involving reasonable dialogue with other well-established Pro-Life groups. Consistently, they point to judicial tyranny and offer no realistic strategy of how they propose to end it."

"There are some people that have blinders on and they are not looking at the political ramifications behind it," Trude said in an interview Monday. "There are always people out there that don't care about the ramifications of this. They only care that they believe they are doing the right thing."

Chief among Trude's concerns is the fear that if CI- 102 becomes law it could lead to an affirmation of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

"I appreciate the intent for which they have tried to do this, but this just isn't the right time," Trude said. "If they get enough signatures, and it does pass, then it goes to the Montana Supreme Court and then goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Where, Trude said, Justice Anthony Kennedy would probably side with the four liberal members on the panel and "concrete" the Roe v. Wade decision.

While some anti-abortion groups are opposed to CI-102, Allyson Hagen, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana, said the division is really just a difference of strategy.

"These groups share the same goal of outlawing abortion and endangering the health of Montana women," Hagen said. "The consequences of amendments like this are far-reaching and dangerous. We ask that all Montanans who value the right to privacy and the health and safety of the women in their lives decline to sign the petition for CI-102."

To qualify an initiative or referendum for the November 2010 ballot, sponsors must obtain

signatures of 5 percent of the total number of qualified voters in the state, including 5 percent of the voters in each of 34 legislative house districts, for a total of 24,337 signatures.

To qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot, signatures of 10 percent of the total number of qualified voters in the state, including 10 percent of the voters in each of 40 legislative house districts must be obtained for a total of 48,674 signatures.

UPDATE: I mistakenly reported that the Montana Family Foundation is also urging its supporters to stay away from the CI-102 initiative. While MFF executive director Jeff Laszloffy has told me in the past the his organization is not supporting CI-102, he pointed out in an e-mail to me this morning the following:

"With regards to the Montana Family Foundation that is incorrect. We've taken a completely neutral stance on 102 and have not contacted our constituents regarding the initiative at all."

Anti-abortion groups split on “personhood” amendment

Right to Life of Montana, the Montana Family Foundation and the Montana Catholic Conference will not support the campaign to get a so-called “personhood” amendment on the 2010 ballot.

Officials for all three groups told me that they want to ban abortion, but that the strategy put forth by the pro-“personhood” crowd could have disastrous consequences for their cause.

The Montana ProLife Coalition, headed by Kalispell physician Annie Bukacek, launched the “personhood” campaign on Wednesday. Their goal is to change the Montana Constitution by adding a section to Article II that would read something like this:

"With respect to the fundamental and inalienable right to life, the word 'person' as used in sections 4, 15, 16 and 17 of this article, applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, health, function, physical and/or mental dependency or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

The primary motivation behind the proposed amendment is the hope that if it becomes law that it would trigger a direct legal challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the U.S.

Bukacek said as much at Wednesday’s press conference at the capitol:

“The root of legalization of abortion is the denial of personhood. Justice Blackmun who wrote the majority decision in Roe v. Wade himself said that if the personhood of the unborn was established, then their right to life is guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment. That is why we say the personhood of the unborn is pivotal to overturning Roe v. Wade and why Montana ProLife Coalition chooses personhood as our primary legal strategy to end abortion.”

Most Montana anti-abortion groups don’t support that strategy. Some anti-abortion legal scholars and officials for the three aforementioned pro-life groups say a “personhood” amendment could have several unintended consequences for their movement.

Moe Wosepka, executive director of the Montana Catholic Conference, had this to say:

“…this could very possibly strengthen Roe v. Wade, which would weaken pro-life efforts. We don’t want to take that chance.”

This from Gregg Trude, executive director of Right to Life of Montana:

“The people at Montana ProLife Coalition, bless their hearts, they are trying to do this process and they don’t understand the ramifications behind what could happen if it got through, and it’s very frustrating.”

So what are those ramifications?

James Bopp Jr., an attorney for National Right to Life who has argued abortion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, laid them out in a 2007 memo:

“…now is not the time to pass state constitutional amendments or bills banning abortion because (1) such provisions will be quickly struck down by a federal district court, (2) that decision will be affirmed by an appellate court, (3) the Supreme Court will not grant review of the decision, and (4) the pro-abortion attorneys who brought the legal challenge will collect statutory attorneys fees from the state that enacted the provision in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Montana ProLife Coalition board member and former state legislator Rick Jore says Bopp’s concerns are hogwash. In an interview for my story in Sunday’s Tribune, Jore said:

“Our concern is that for too long, because we’ve simply shied away from direct challenge of the premise of our opponents, that we’ve compromised ourselves by saying we’re going to save some babies but abort the rest,” Jore said. “In my view, by taking that position, we’ve too often compromised our credibility. It has compromised our underlying premise, which is that all unborn from the time of conception are human beings that deserve the protection of law.”

Travis McAdam of the Montana Human Rights Network, characterized Montana ProLife Coalition this way:

“What’s interesting about the group that’s pushing and sponsoring this proposed constitutional amendment is that it really is the fringe of the anti-choice crowd. It’s people who looked at Right to Life Montana and said, they’re not active enough, not doing enough, not quite extreme enough.”

You can read the full story in Sunday’s Tribune.

Anti-abortion group launches new constitutional amendment campaign in Montana

A new anti-abortion group called Montana ProLife Coalition launched a campaign today to change the state’s constitution to define a person as “all human beings, irrespective of age, health, function, physical and/or mental dependency or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

Former Rep. Rick Jore, C-Ronan, authored the three ballot initiative proposals that the group submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office for consideration. They hope to gather the necessary number of signatures to get the proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2010 ballot.

The idea behind “personhood” initiatives is to try to exploit a perceived weakness in Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in the landmark 1973 Roe V. Wade decision. Supporters of the measure hope that the passage of such an initiative would present a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

Kalispell physician Annie Bukacek, president of the Montana ProLife Coalition, made that point at today’s press conference:

“The root of legalization of abortion is the denial of personhood. Justice Blackmun, who wrote the majority decision in Roe v. Wade, himself said that if the personhood of the unborn was established, then their right to life is guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.”

These kinds of amendments have divided the anti-abortion community. Some prominent anti-abortion groups contend that setting up a challenge to Roe v. Wade, and then losing, could have costly consequences":

"The [U.S. Supreme] Court (if it does review the case) is likely to switch to a more absolutist equal protection rationale for the abortion right, and all current regulations on abortion would be subject to, and likely struck down under, this new rationale. This would have a devastating effect on current protections for the unborn," said an analysis by James Bopp Jr. and Richard E. Coleson.

In 2008 the Montana Catholic Conference refused to support a Montana personhood ballot initiative (that effort fell about 20,000 signatures short of making the ballot).

Moe Wosepka, executive director of the Montana Catholic Conference, said at the time that the bishops struggled with the decision not to support the measure, but decided that in the end, the language of the proposed amendment was too broad. (sorry, no links to the 2008 GF Trib story).

"It defines person without any exceptions and it affects several different parts of our state statutes," 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)."

Allyson Hagen, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana said the personhood initiative is “an attempt to attack our constitutional right to privacy and eliminate access to abortion care for women.”

“Whether or not they get on the ballot, I think that the vast majority of Montanans are going to oppose an extreme initiative like this one.

I think Montanans believe very strongly in the right to privacy, and the decisions regarding pregnancy should be between a woman and her doctor, not with the Legislature or the government.”

The 2008 initiative fell more than 18,000 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot. Asked if Montana ProLife Coalition would turn to paid signature gatherers for this year's campaign, Bukacek and Jore said "no." It's worth noting that Trevis Butcher, treasurer and cheif spokesman for Montanans in Action and veteran of Montana initiative campaigns, sits on the Montana ProLife Coalition Board.

You can read my full report in tomorrow’s Great Falls Tribune.