Rick Jore, the Constitution Party state legislator from Montana, has decided not to run for re-election in 2008 and instead has thrown his energies into a pro-life constitutional amendment. This amendment needs 44,000 signatures to reach the Montana general election ballot in November. Rick Jore’s initiative has recieved a lot of press attention in and around Montana and is similar to another “personhood amendment” in Colorado.
The press has taken notice of the firestorm of controversy around this particular issue. Two articles were published today about lobbying for this initiative at the polls. Today’s primary is expected to draw out many registered voters, and the proponents of CI-100 will be asking for signatures while voters wait to vote. In a rare move, pro-choice groups in Montana are organizing activists to stand right beside these petitioners and ask voters not to sign the petitions.
Backers of the proposal will be out in force at the polls today to ask voters to sign petitions to get the measure qualified for the general election. The need to get to their signature goal by June 20 so the Secretary of State can validate them and approve the initiative.
Rep. Rick Jore of Ronan, who is behind the effort, told KTVQ he hopes today’s vote will give his group enough signatures to cross the finish line.
“We’re hoping our efforts at least are geared toward getting volunteers to the polling places in as many places as we can,” he said. “We’ve got some very dedicated and passionate volunteers that I personally am very proud of.”
Normally voters don’t see people from groups asking them not to sign petitions, but that’s what they’ll encounter today at polling venues across the state. That’s because Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups will have activists standing next to pro-life petition gatherers asking voters not to sign them.
Allyson Hagen, a spokeswoman for the groups, told the television station they will be out in force today.
“We actually think there is an opportunity to keep this from qualifying for the ballot,” she said. “And we do have volunteers who are trained to be out and talking pro-actively to people about CI-100. And we hope people will decline to sign the petition.”
Another article.
Kalipay, Dont be a smartie-pants. =)
Trent, it was South Dakota.
I do not condone legal acts of aggression either, but I also don’t feel it is best to invest energy into a cause that will only promote more division and likely result in very little net benefit.
I agree that the issue remains largely an educational one, but I can’t support legal acts of aggression.
Sounds like we need to keep Mrs GE off the comment threads, I can’t imagine the kind of trouble that would stir…
I should also add that this is a very contentious issue in my household, as my wife is pro-choice and it leads to frequent arguments and her threatening to divorce me!
Fred – I will say this, though. I think if abortion were outlawed overnight, the total life lost would probably remain relatively the same. This is a cultural issue, I believe. White supremacy was so ingrained in society 200 or 300 years ago, that non-whites were seen as non-humans. Someone could be for “every man equal” when they did not see Indians or Blacks or Chinese as men. Many people do not see unborn babies as individuals with rights. The abortion issue will be solved no more easily than racialism or sexism have been “solved.” But I think education is more important than legislation.
Someone mentioned a while back that the LP’s branding sucked. When I first signed up in 2000, the party’s platform was open to libertarians on either side of the matter, but all the t-shirts said “I’m pro-choice on everything!” The result is Ross’s misconception, which is a very popular one.
Personally…I’m against abortion…
However, if someone chooses to get an abortion, thats something they must live with. I will say this, when people say “it should be left up to the woman”, I only half agree. The father should have a legal say over it as well. People tend to ignore that fact.
Ross – You don’t understand libertarianism. Libertarianism is against the initiation of force. Some libertarians, like myself, have come to view abortion as the initiation of force against a human being not yet born. Thus, legalized abortion is an intervention of its own. And like every government intervention, it has unintended consequences. Post Roe v. Wade, the “at-risk” birth rate actually went up, not down. More, not fewer, unwanted children are being brought into the world. And women have been culturally sexualized, willing or not. Susan B. Anthony saw abortion as a horrible thing imposed upon women by men, and I think this is largely true today, too. But I believe the best thing someone opposed to abortion can do, rather than agitating for relief through the legal system, is make the case against abortion and win over the hearts and minds of opponents. This is how I was convinced; by a very friendly Ron Paul supporter who had been jailed numerous times for nonviolent protests.
Opposed to legal abortion? Not very libertarian of you, GE…
I’ll bet you this fails.
My criticism of pro-lifers: They demonize their opponents rather than trying to educate them. We have come to accept, culturally, what I now consider to be a particular kind of lethal aggression. Making it illegal seems as absurd to “pro-choice” people as allowing women to own property would have seemed x-hundred years ago. Making abortion illegal, right now, will not heal this rift any more than various anti-discrimination laws have worked to heal racism, homophobia, or sexism.
Of course, my opposition to abortion comes from an entirely different place than that of the average pro-life activist. To them, in my opinion, it’s more of a “cultural war,” and they want to defeat their opponents.
Oh, I didn’t read that in the original post. Just skimmed it.
North Dakota. Im not sure how badly it failed–but lets remember that Montana is far more pro-life, even if it is only marginally “more conservative”.
What do you mean “what do you mean”? The meaning is fairly obvious. If you want to stand on taxpayer funded property and collect signatures, then you must put up with people also exercising their free-speech rights telling people not to sign. If you don’t want to put up with it, go to private property.
Trent – Something similar got hammered in the Dakotas, right?
Austin,
Yes. A total of 4 terms, or something similar.
GE–this is Montana. It will pass.
GE – what do you mean by the first comment?
Montana’s term limits are nonconsecutive?
If this gets on the ballot, it will lose.
Opponents of abortion need to realize they have educating to do. Trying to pass a law with a bare majority isn’t a good idea. It leads to hostility and mistrust.
I also support the rights of opponents to ask people to not sign the petition. If the petitioners don’t like it, they should restrict their signature-gathering to private property, with the permission of the property owners.
He is. But he could’ve run for something else–I hear he was courted by Republicans to run for the Senate district he lives in.
I thought Rick Jore was term-limited? Or about to be?
Hm, what an interesting thing. I don’t agree with the initiative, but I respect this guy’s ability to get one on the ballot. (this is the part where you click my name)