Students organize march to support CI-128

Editor's note: This version corrects several errors in the print edition and adds the text of CI-128 that the article said would be included.

A Havre High School student organized a march Monday in support of CI-128, the initiative that would put a woman being able to choose to have an abortion in the state Constitution.

Dylan Kunz, 16, organized to march to start at the Havre High School West Parking Lot Monday and proceed to Hensler Auditorium in Montana State University-Northern's Applied Technology Center, where a presentation on CI-126, the open primary initiative, and CI-127, which requires a majority vote, at least 51 percent, for a candidate to win an election, started at 6 p.m.

That was followed by recorded presentation by Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights at 7 p.m.

Kunz said he had more people show up for the march than he expected, with close to 10 students and 15 adults marching.

Kunz said in an interview before the march that he wants to show support for enshrining in the constitution a woman's ability to make her own decision's about reproductive health care.

"The reason we're marching for this is to tell the public that the youth is listening, the youth knows what is happening and the youth are going to get engaged," he said. "CI-128 will will affect future generations, of Montanana, it'll affect daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers. And we want to make sure that we can raise awareness and that we can get this bill passed."

Putting the right to an abortion in the Constitution

Supporters say the initiative, the full text of which. Is at the end of this article, will simply codify in the Constitution what is already in place.

A Montana Supreme Court decision in 1999, Armstrong vs State, ruled that laws preventing a woman from choosing to have an abortion from a health-care provider of her choosing violated the the right to individual privacy guaranteed in the state constitution.

That right also had been guaranteed by the U.S Supreme Court in 1972's Roe v. Wade, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court two years ago.

The initiative would put in the Constitution language that a right exists to make and carry out decisions about one's own pregnancy, including abortion.

It says that the government may regulate the provision of abortion after fetal viability - the point at which the fetus is able to survive outside the womb - provided it does prevent access to an abortion that the treating health professional judges to be needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.

Groups including the American College of of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association have stated that abortions can be necessary to preserve the health or even life of the pregnant woman.

Kunz said the reason he supports the initiative is that it would prevent legislators in the future from passing laws that take away the right the Montana Supreme Court has ruled is guaranteed by the constitution.

But opponents say the problem with the initiative is that it is too vague.

Arguments have been made that having the term "reproductive rights" in the initiative open the door for using the initiative on issues of gender transition, which has nothing to do with abortions.

The initiative never uses the term reproductive rights.

Other arguments are that it is too vague in defining terms like health care professional and fetal viability.

Havre resident Paula Brady, who has volunteered at the Hi-Line Pregnancy Resource center, has joined other concerned residents in going door-to-door to campaign against CI-128.

Brady and Hi-Line Pregnancy Resource Center Executive Director Sally Loftus and board member Karissa Springer said Tuesday during an interview with Havre Weekly Chronicle that, while all three would like to see more restrictions placed on abortions in the state, their concern with the initiative is that vague language could lead to hidden or unpredicted consequences.

"I believe that, when we are voting on an initiative that will be in our Constitution, it needs to be very clearly laid out what al that would include," Springer said.

One of those issues is the definition of health care provider, which is not in the initiative. The three said that could lead to people connected to health care but in no way qualified to deal with the issue making a decision about fetal viability and whether an abortion is justified.

Another is the issue of fetal viability.

Although Montana Code annotated defines fetal viability and how it just be determined, because the initiative doesn't define fetal viability, Springer said, it could lead to providers changing the definition.

"There's confusion in this initiative, and if things aren't clear-cut, that's going to lead to lawsuits and things tied up in court and unintended consequences," Brady said.

Another argument raised against the initiative is that it will increase taxpayer-funded abortions.

Bardy said the initiative could increase the number of abortions being performed in Montana, including ones paid for in certain conditions using Medicaid.

And, the initiative would increase Montana being an abortion destination state, she added, which it already is with pregnant women living in states with more abortion restrictions coming to Montana.

"We'll become, if this passes, will become one of the more liberal states in the United States, more abortion-lenient," Brady said. "... So, instead of being a tourist destination were going to be an abortion destination. I like the idea of them coming to Glacier Park better than coming for an abortion."

Ashley All, communication director for Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, said in an emailed response to Havre Weekly Chronicle that none of those claims stand up.

"These outrageous claims are false and have been proven false numerous times," All said in the emailed statement. "It is shameful that extremists continue to lie and deceive voters in order to take away our freedom. The truth: This amendment ensures Montana women and families can make their own personal decisions around pregnancy, miscarriage, and abortion – not the government."

She provided a list of what she said the initiative does lay out.

• CI-128 is a clear, commonsense initiative that simply protects Montanan's current reproductive rights in the state constitution. 

• CI-128 clearly allows limits on abortion after fetal viability.

• CI-128 will not impact Montana taxpayers. It simply ensures women can get the healthcare they need, without government interference.

• CI-128 won't change parental rights as you noted. 

• CI-128 maintains existing health and safety standards that keep patients safe while ensuring doctors can provide care should a patient face a miscarriage or a life-threatening pregnancy.

Kunz said he thinks the issue should be left between the pregnant woman and the health care providers. Montana voters should trust those providers, he said.

"A personal belief of mine is that this never should even be on a ballot," he added. "This isn't a political fight, it's a privacy right. We are politicizing health care and demonizing women for getting abortions or making that very hard choice already is extremely wrong.

" ... Now's the time," he said, "'cause if we hesitate, if we wait, we can't guarantee this right to privacy for all future Montanans it's it's something that's really, really important."

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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) For purposes of this section:

(a) 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.

(b) “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 -