What can you expect from a “human rights” organization that promotes killing humans?

Editor,

The ACLU has launched their largest fundraising effort in 88 years, and most of the hundreds of millions of dollars are being pumped into “conservative” states like Montana. They have already jumped on the STOP CI 100 bandwagon, CI 100 being the Personhood Amendment that states that personhood begins at conception. They placed STOP CI 100 people at the polls for the June 3 primary preceded by a mass mailing of glossy fliers.

Though the promoters of CI 100 are clearly for protection of life from conception, signing the petition was not a statement of whether the signer is for or against the amendment. Signing is simply a statement that Montanans should be allowed to choose. If it makes it to the November ballot, Montanans will be able vote for or against it. The STOP CI 100 backers don’t want Montana voters to have that choice. Ironic and deceptive, their calling themselves “pro-choice.”

Scrutinize the language on those STOP CI 100 glossies and note the emotional appeal, lack of facts and use of the fear factor. The glossy states “CI 100 would make it illegal for a woman to access safe and legal abortions, no exceptions.” The truth is, CI 100, the Personhood Amendment, does not make anything illegal or legal. According to the US Constitution, laws are to be made by the legislators. This brings me to the ACLU’s other “points” on the glossy. They say that if CI 100 passes, then miscarriages will be investigated, pregnant women could be denied chemotherapy, and women could be denied birth control. Could those things happen if CI 100 passed? Yes. Are they likely? A resounding no. Congress would have to pass laws to investigate miscarriage, deny chemotherapy, and outlaw birth control. That didn’t happen prior to the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision, making the probability zero of it happening because of the Personhood Amendment.

My favorite ACLU-based objection to CI 100 is that it will “drastically change our state’s constitution.” It implies the ACLU stands for upholding the constitution. This could not be farther from the truth. Roe vs Wade itself was unconstitutional. According to the US Constitution (Article III Section 2) the US Supreme Court does not have the authority to make laws. That is the jurisdiction of Congress (Article I section 1). Our Founding Fathers had too much collective wisdom to give so much power to nine individuals. Judiciary and federal supremacy is not constitutional, nor are Supreme Court Judicial appointments supposed to last their lifespan (Article III section 1). The ACLU is an organization of lawyers and administrators, so they know better. Since they know the truth, the lies on their flier are willful.

The latest lie from the pro-abortion forces was brought to my attention by a patient of mine who read the Billings Gazette June 25. It carried an article where Travis McAdam, of the Montana Human Rights Network stated that it is already known that CI 100 fell short of the required signatures needed to get it on the November ballot. Foes of CI 100 say they know it has failed base it on information gleaned from calling “all county elections offices to confirm that CI 100 had failed to qualify.” The article stated that “according to their research, proponents gathered only 21,280 signatures.” I called several county elections offices and the Secretary of State’s elections office, and no such estimates have been released. So how, did they come up with this precise number if estimates aren’t even available? As is typical, spokes person foes of CI 100 are lying. We will not know until July 18 after a second audit of signatures is performed at the Secretary of State’s election office . 

Travis McAdam, speaking for the organizations against CI 100, gives them credit for the defeat of CI 100 by educating “Montanans about the real dangers of CI 100,” and went on to describe those same dangers easily refuted from the glossy STOP CI 100 flier. If, after the July 18 final count, CI 100 is defeated, and these organizations are responsible for that defeat, understand that they defeated it with lies. If you sided with them, you bought into lies.

What else can you expect from the ACLU whose strategies require lies and from a “human rights” organization that promotes killing humans?

Annie Bukacek

Kalispell