Dear Editor: Vote NO on CI-128

Dear Editor,

I am opposed to all elective abortion, but I hope to find common ground with all voters regarding CI-128.

I urge you to look beyond the language that will appear on the ballot and take five minutes to read the language that will appear in the Montana state constitution in its entirety if voters approve CI-128. In reading the actual language, it is clear that CI-128 would radically expand abortion in Montana, enshrining in the Montana Constitution a right to an elective abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

First, it is important to note that if CI-128 does not pass, elective abortion will remain legal in Montana. This is because of a 1999 Montana Supreme Court decision called Armstrong v. State, which found a right to an elective abortion "pre-viability." There is no immediate danger of this decision being overturned. Earlier this year, the seven justices of the Montana Supreme Court unanimously overturned a law that would require parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion, citing Armstrong in their decision.

The ballot language of CI-128, much like the 1999 Armstrong decision, says there is an unlimited right to an abortion before fetal viability. What the ballot language does not tell you is that the Constitutional amendment also redefines the word viability in such a way that it is rendered completely meaningless and arbitrary. For decades, viability has been understood to correspond to some number of weeks gestation. This has generally been between 21 and 28 weeks gestation. So, a voter who reads only the ballot language might think that this is what would be enshrined into the Constitution. Voters need to understand that CI-128 says:

"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.

The words "significant" and "extraordinary" are not defined and are left to the treating "healthcare professional" to interpret. Additionally, the decision the "healthcare professional" makes regarding viability is not subject to any kind of review. This opens the door to any pregnancy being considered non-viable.

If you think my assessment is hyperbolic, listen to what Alex Rate, attorney for the ACLU, had to say recently about this at a forum in Bozeman while he was promoting CI-128. The entire recording of the forum can be found at https://kgvm.org/program/election-2024. At 38:15, I asked him if my 37-week pregnancy would be considered viable. He could not say. I followed up and asked him if a 40-week pregnancy could be considered non-viable. He could not say. This is a situation that should shock voters' consciences. How could proponents of CI-128 not mention in the ballot language their radical redefinition of the word "viability"?

Next, the amendment says abortions must be permitted after viability if the life and "health" of the mother is at risk. Of course, the life and health of mothers is of paramount importance. What the proponents of this amendment hope voters don't notice is that they never bother to define the word health. They cannot mean "health" in the sense that most of us think about health. They must be considering health much more broadly to include facets of a woman's life such as psychological distress, financial, and familial situations.

That is because if a serious threat to the mother develops late in pregnancy, it is much faster and safer to deliver a baby who may live rather than perform an abortion, which ensures the baby will not be born alive. For voters considering a "yes" vote on CI-128, I beg you to make sure you understand what you are voting to enshrine in our constitution. If you do not know how a late-term abortion is performed and how that procedure differs from a normal delivery, abortion procedures.com uses medical animation and former abortion doctors to give an accurate description of all abortion procedures, including a third-trimester "induction" abortion.

With its intentionally vague language and radical redefinitions, it is clear that CI-128 paves the way to allow elective abortion at any point in pregnancy. Vague terms such as "healthcare professional" also pose a danger to women who undergo abortions. If that makes you uncomfortable, please join me in voting "NO" on CI-128.

JENNA GILL

Whitehall, Montana