|
By Moe Wosepka, Executive Director
Montana Catholic Conference
Last month Montana’s Catholic Bishops, Most Reverend George Leo Thomas and Most Reverend Michael W. Warfel, issued a joint statement regarding Church participation with CI-100, the Human Personhood Amendment. The petition, which is currently circulating throughout the state in an attempt to obtain the necessary signatures to place the initiative on the ballot in November, seeks to amend our state constitution to define personhood as beginning at fertilization. The intent of this human life amendment (HLA) is to overturn Roe v Wade.
The issue is confusing, and several people have called or e-mailed with questions and concerns.
To clarify the process and the decisions made, I have listed the most commonly asked questions we received and a brief response to each. I invite all who have further questions to please contact me at 442-5761or e-mail director@montanacc.org, We will work very hard to find answers for you.
Question (1) “This initiative declares that life begins at fertilization. Why would the Catholic Church not support that statement?”
The simple answer is the Church does support that statement. The belief in the sacredness of human life is the core of Catholic Social Teaching. The Bishops’ statement on CI-100 reiterates their commitment to defend human life in all of its stages, from conception to natural death.
The concern is not in the statement. The difficulty begins with the attempt to place that phrase in the state constitution. Human Life Amendments are not new. They have appeared in Michigan and Georgia, and are currently seeking signatures in Montana and Colorado. Another initiative drive was stopped in Oregon due to wording in the petition. These amendments have been thoroughly scrutinized in those states by state pro-life leaders and national pro-life groups. The National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, and other major pro-life groups have also expressed concerns about the negative consequences of these initiatives.
Question (2) “You speak of negative consequences. Just exactly what do you mean by negative consequences?”
If CI-100 passes, the courts would most likely strike it down due to the overly broad language of the initiative.
The other option is it may pass and be upheld by the courts. That may be an even more difficult position to be in because to quote the supporters of the initiative, “it creates no laws, it legislates nothing, it establishes a constitutional principle.” They tell us “it merely defines person in the constitution and the details will be decided by the next legislature.” I have copied the initiative below. Subsection 4 says the legislature must define each of these subsections (1, 2 and 3).
So we are asked to vote to pass an initiative that is void of detail, and then we must trust the next legislature to define what each of the subsections means, and how it applies to current law. The courts will then be asked to weigh in, because there will certainly be a challenge.
Montana Constitutional Initiative CI-100
- Every person has a paramount and fundamental right to life.
- All persons are born created free and have certain inalienable rights from the moment of conception. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.
- As used in this article, “person” includes a human being at all stages of human development or life, including the state of fertilization, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency.
- Subsections (1) and (3) and the language regarding the moment of conception in subsection (2) must be implemented by legislation.”
The ambiguity of the statement, and the uncertainty of the legislative interpretation is of grave concern for the Bishops. An initiative of this importance should be very carefully defined before we vote on it, and not left to an unknown group (our newly elected legislature) to determine what it was that we approved. Depending on the makeup of the next legislature, we could be worse off than before.
The best guess by many legal experts is that the initiative will be struck down by the courts. Adoption of CI-100 will certainly result in one or more lawsuits against the State of Montana and all state and federal courts will be required to apply U.S. Supreme Court precedent to void CI-100 as it applies to abortion. Any such suit, whether it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court or not, carries the danger of causing more legislative and judicial damage than no opinion at all.
Many legal experts agree that the current U.S. Supreme Court would, at best, decline to hear the case, and at worst, use the opportunity to reaffirm the right to abortion yet another time. The more times the Supreme Court’s abortion decisions are affirmed, the more difficult it becomes to obtain further hearings from the Court and to expect decisions to end abortion.
All of these situations and more cause a greater number of questions to be asked than there are answers. We should not be asking our parishioners to vote on an initiative so void of detail, and leaving those details to be decided by others. Those decisions could very easily leave us in a position much worse than we are in now.
Question (3) “If this moves us one step closer to abolishing abortion, or if it would save one life, why wouldn’t we support it?”
The Bishops always are looking for public policy ways to eliminate abortion and thus saving human lives. This amendment will not accomplish that goal.
The problem is the language is so broad that it cannot possibly do what it is intended to do. It is a very complicated issue which, in every state it appears, brings into play aspects of constitutional law, criminal law, medical ethics, child abuse and neglect statutes, in vitro fertilization, and in some states and some instances end of life decisions, as well as wrongful death and civil tort law. Because of the broad application, even some of the supporters will tell you that if it did pass in November it would be struck down by the courts.
If there were a founded hope that this amendment would save one life, the Bishops would support it. The proposed amendment will not accomplish that goal. If it would save one life the Bishops would have supported it, but it is very clear that it will not save even one life.
Question (4) “Why did the Bishops issue a statement? If they didn’t agree with the strategy, why not just let it be, and not say anything at all?”
The statement was issued because many of our priests and leaders of Catholic organizations had been contacted regarding support and assistance with signature gathering for the initiative. They had asked for guidance from the Bishops on how to proceed. The Bishops felt it was important to have a clear, unified voice, so they issued the official statement.
Question (5) “So we don’t support this initiative. The Bishops’ statement talks about forming a coalition and pursuing other alternatives. What exactly do they mean by that?”
One alternative is to promote a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution which the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops in league with the National Right to Life and other leading pro-life organizations have been doing. The difference between the amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution is Roe is federal not a state issue since the federal constitution overrules state constitutions if there is a conflict.
Beyond that, dramatic changes to law and public policy do not occur through chance, but through careful and detailed planning. There did not appear to be sufficient analysis or planning to suggest that the stated goals of CI-100 could be achieved, and the negative consequences avoided. We tried early on before this initiative went to the people to express our concerns and recommended taking the time to answer the questions so we could support this initiative fully. Unfortunately we could not come to a consensus and the CI-100 supporters decided to move forward on their own.
The Bishops have recommended other alternatives; some of those we have been working on since the last legislative session. Each of these efforts has a very clear and achievable goal. They include:
- Establishing and funding pregnancy help centers that promote informed choice by offering alternatives to abortion, especially adoption
- Provide supportive services for pregnant and parenting women, including low-income women and college students, patterned after the federal “Pregnant Women Support Act”
- Bolster abortion alternatives by increasing adoption services for women who place their infant for adoption; 4)Pass a law requiring parental notification with judicial bypass in cases where the woman seeking an abortion is under 18.
A recent study by the Heritage Foundation has shown legislative proposals like these in other states have saved many lives, but they will not save lives unless we make a decision to come together to promote life efforts.
Good, intelligent people do not always agree as to the best approach to solve problems, but what we do agree upon is the need to work hard to protect life. It is time to form a coalition to work on strategies and issues where we can find agreement. We need to bring our common goals to the table and develop plans to achieve those goals.
The Montana Catholic Conference will pledge to be part of a statewide coalition, to bring our resources forward to the table to craft viable legislation. Our commitment to life remains from conception to natural death. We will continue to support efforts to protect unborn life, to abolish the death penalty in Montana, and we will continue to oppose current court actions which would allow physician-assisted suicide in our great state.
Published in The Montana Catholic Online, Volume 24, No. 3, March 21, 2008.
|
