Reader shares Natelson's take on CI-128
For 23 years Robert G. Natelson served as professor of law at the University of Montana. Professor Natelson is one of America’s best known constitutional scholars and author, whose constitutional research has been cited repeatedly by justices at the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts, and at least 16 state supreme courts.
Professor Natelson recently reviewed CI-128. The following are all his words and excerpts of his conclusions regarding this bill:
“CI-128 does not comply with the ‘separate vote’ rule and forces voters to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on a measure that is really not a single proposal, but a bundle of proposals – and some of these issues extend well beyond merely protecting the right to abortion.”
“CI-128 is a badly written, misleading, and risky proposal. Its style does not fit into that of the Montana Constitution. The amendment should define important words and phrases. It should focus on the issue at hand, and not venture into other areas. The wording should be crafted to avoid hidden or unintended consequences.”
“While abortion rights generally are thought of as women’s rights, CI-128 nowhere mentions women. CI-128 is not a ‘women’s rights’ measure. It refers only to ‘pregnant patients’ and ‘persons,’ and employs the pronoun ‘their’ instead of ‘her.’ This language is odd.
“First, it is a biologic fact that only women and girls become pregnant. Second, the Montana Constitution specifically distinguishes between ‘men’ and ‘women,’ and good drafting is to use pre-existing constitutional language.”
“So why did the drafters of CI-128 flout biology, constitutional usage, and popular understanding by including this usage? One likely goal was to leverage this language in future litigation, presumably to claim constitutional status for ‘gender fluidity.’ It threatens to provoke endless lawsuits, from which only lawyers will benefit.”
“The upshot is that those who vote for CI-128 are not voting merely for reproductive rights. They are offering constitutional support for biological males to invade woman sports, and for surgical mutilation of children.”
“The implications of (CI-128’s) wording range beyond the abortion decision. This wording threatens the integrity of Montana families and exposes children to abusive practices by people outside the family. It allows children and mentally incompetent people to make health care decisions without the consent – or even the input – of their parents and guardians.”
“CI-128 gives life-and-death power to ‘treating health care professionals,’ but never defines who they are. CI-128 contains no requirement that the “treating healthcare professional” be competent or even licensed. It makes certain health and safety laws unenforceable.”
If Supreme Court justices from all over our country use Professor Natelson’s research to determine the outcome of cases, why wouldn’t we use his research to understand CI-128?
Professor Natelson also said that CI-128 uses “language foreign to the rest of the document – and inappropriate for any state Constitution. If placed in the Montana Constitution, CI-128 would look like a festering sore on an otherwise healthy body.”
Stand against this bad legislation and vote “No” on CI-128.
– Melody Thiel, Ronan