Jore’s fetus-rights bill loses a round, but isn’t dead yet.

HELENA — A bill designed to lead to a constitutional amendment giving a fetus rights as a person was voted down in the House of Representatives Monday, but will be back again today for its third reading.

Because it would amend the constitution to specify that life begins at conception, the bill requires a two-thirds vote of the entire Legislature. If its sponsor, Constitution Party member Rick Jore of Ronan, can muster 50 House votes today, it will go on to the Senate . . .

Read the rest of the article here.

29 Responses to “Jore’s fetus-rights bill loses a round, but isn’t dead yet.”

  1. matt Says:

    If the comments in the story are indication, many Montana politicians on both sides of the aisle would rather hem and haw about abortion sp that they appear prolife than actually solve the problem and ban abortions.

    Think about it, if you run on a prolife platform, what happens to you after you succeed in getting abortion banned? These guys like to drag it out, so that they can get mileage out of the issue for their whole careers.

  2. RWR Says:

    This story is outdated; the bill was defeated on its final vote on Tuesday.

  3. Trent Hill Says:


  4. Cody Quirk Says:

    I’m sorry it was defeated. I hope Jore has a ‘Plan B’.

  5. Joey Dauben Says:

    On a happy note, my sister who lives in Arizona says she’s a month or two pregnant and she went to the doctor and they can detect a heartbeat.

    How dare anyone say that that isn’t a living, breathing person. I’ll be one busy uncle, that’s for sure!

  6. matt Says:

    I don’t think most Republicans have any interest in banning abortion. They certainly want it as an issue that they can talk about and use to motivate the base, but once abortion is banned, it’s over and done and ‘the base’ suddenly notices that taxes are high and their money isn’t worth anything anymore. Bye-bye Republicans. They’d prefer to keep abortion legal but whip up lots of outrage over it so that they can keep their priveliged positions. Which, in my opinion is indefensible. These are the pro-life, pro-war types mentioned earlier. They are parasites who use the deaths of infants for political leverage. People who are honestly pro-choice are, in a way, justified in acting upon their (in my opinion erroneous) beliefs, but these GOP bastards are totally without defense.

  7. Gary Odom Says:

    Matt has it exactly right. It’s not NARAL or the Kate Michelman’s of the world who are the worst impediment in the fight against abortion, it is the GOP with the Religious Right in its pocket who make all the sanctimonious pronouncements about the sanctity of life and then go right ahead and place and maintain subsidies to Planned Parenthood in the Federal Budget.

    It’s their way of maintianing a perpetual issue to milk. They have no desire to see it go away.

    There is a big difference between the institutional “pro-life” fundraising machines who support the Republican Party and the committed pro-life activists you see involoved in the Constitution Party.

  8. Richard Winger Says:

    I recently learned that until 1869, the Catholic Church taught that souls do not attach to developing human beings until 40 days after conception. And it is scientifically clear that a soul does not attach at the moment of conception, because in the case of identical twins, the organism doesn’t split into two organisms until a few days after conception. Surely one human soul doesn’t split into two souls, so clearly there was no soul there at all at, or immediately, after conception. Separate from all that, there is no functioning brain until quite a few days after conception. A beating heart is full of symbolism, but a heart is just a pump machine; it’s the brain development that people should pay attention to.

  9. RWR Says:

    Richard Winger said:

    “Surely one human soul doesn’t split into two souls”

    Are you sure about that? Since you use the term “scientifically clear,” what scientific evidence specifically addresses the relationship of a soul to an identical twin?

    Perhaps you meant to say “it is clear to me.” Biblically speaking and scientifically speaking, I see no evidence that the twins are not given individual souls at conception; in fact, since the LORD is aware that the zygote will develop as twins, I would disagree with you, although I’m not 100% sure.

    In your case and in mine, it is pure conjecture based on the evidence we have.

  10. Richard Winger Says:

    Well, maybe souls are assigned even before conception. The Catholic Church rule that prohibits nuns and priests from getting married is responsible for the failure to be born of thousands of babies.

    Why can’t the souls that don’t have bodies yet just wait around for the next body to be formed?

    Besides, if people really thought a zygote at the moment of conception is as important as a fully developed human being, why don’t people who want to protect them with criminal laws provide that the mother be prosecuted for murder? And why do we all celebrate our birthdays instead of our conception days? And why doesn’t medical science go on a crash research project to do something about the “problem” that approximately half of all newly-fertilized human eggs never develop, but are naturally aborted by mother nature?

  11. Fred C. Says:

    I’m glad you mentioned the old 40-day rule Richard, personally I was never able to find a date indicating when the standard was no longer applied, and I’d be curious what the Eastern Church’s stance on the “quickening” is. I’d have to retort a few of your points though.

    Celibate Nuns & Priests - I’ve always felt married men should be allowed to enter the priesthood, but I don’t really think there’s a reasoning there that it prevents births. As the assumption is that life begins at conception, and combined with total respect for the seed of life (ie, no masturbating), there’s really nothing sinister going on. So much for the Edwards bloggers’ conspiracy theory about breeding tithers.

    Souls waiting around - presumably, a disincarnate soul does wait around, my understanding is that this is closer to the Latter-day Saint understanding of the soul than the Catholic however. Either way, as the bible says we only die once, an aborted fetus imbued with a soul would experience death, not patience.

    Prosecuting mothers - You’re the lawyer, but I think accesory would be a closer fit, unless the mother induces her own abortion. Anyway, it’s a platform no one could ever win on, though I imagine folks with the strongest opinions on the matter would agree with the idea in principle.

    Conception day - Would require the parents to record and positively identify when exactly they did the nasty resulting in fertilization. That’s one conversation I really don’t want to have with my folks!

    Natural abortions - Personally, I think science definitely should be investigating the matter, I think you’re referring specifically to very early in the fertilization process but I haven’t heard of any research being done to combat miscarriage at all, odd given how devastating it is to mothers that want their babies, and how massively common it is. But medical science is too busy curing erectile dysfunction and the big gov’t money goes to AIDS and cancer.

  12. Timothy West Says:

    we cant know some things, and it’s good that we dont.

  13. Richard Winger Says:

    I appreciate everyone’s friendly tone. Just for the record, I am not an attorney.

  14. Fred C. Says:

    My bad!

  15. matt Says:

    You’re right Tim, some things we cannot know for certain. But what should guide us in uncertainty? Shouldn’t we be motivated by the possibility that we are sending real humans to their deaths and attempt to prevent that? I’m pretty sure that killing foetuses is an exact moral equivalent to killing other people. I am not 100% sure since I don’t have enough information about concsiousness, the soul, etc.

    In any case, since there is some uncertainty, why not err on the side of caution? Why not err on the side of life? Is anything more important than life? What could we give in exchange for our lives?

    I would certainly support any ban on abortion after the 40 day quickening, btw. It’s better than nothing, and would probably prevent many deaths.

  16. Joe Says:

    Most pro-lifers I have talked to about it support prosecution of parents who murder their children and their accomplices.

  17. matt Says:

    Just because we know that abortion is wrong and should be illegal doesn’t mean that we should pretend to know things about the human soul that we are incapable of knowing. Knowing that just one human being is at risk is enough to motivate me to fight tooth and nail against abortion.

  18. RWR Says:

    Right on, Matt. If there is so much as a chance - and almost everybody will agree that there is at least a chance - that a fœtus is a living human being, then why risk it? I’m in medicine, and if you remember the controversy about Vioxx, a very good drug was pulled from the market because there was a minuscule increase in the fatality rate. If a tiny increase in the death rate of adults is cause enough to make a drastic change, why isn’t a huge increase in the fœtal death rate, even if the possibility exists in one’s mind that it is something other than a human, enough to ban abortion?

  19. matt Says:

    Do we care about the lives of everyone in our state or only those who can speak and shame us into protecting them?

  20. David Gaines Says:

    Is this a political blog focusing on third parties, or is it a blog for debating theocracy, metaphysics, and prenatal biology?

  21. matt Says:

    I’m in no mood to suffer fools, David, so here goes:

    One of the few third party members sitting in a state legislature authored important legislation and that legislation made it to a vote and narrowly lost.

    The legislation he authored speaks to to an issue that is deeply important to everyone in one of the major third parties and probably a third of people in one of the others.

    Many of us here think that legal abortion is an outrage on par with slavery. Others disagree, and we’re debating about it. The debate necessarily touches upon moral, metaphysical. philosophical, and medical issues. People on both sides have decided that this important issue is worth talking about.

    You skate in here after a day of blogging on myspace about Ralph Nader and vegetarianism and decide to snipe about theocracy, an issue which hasn’t even been brought up on this site for about a week and a half.

    If you had anything relevant/intelligent to say about this issue, you probably would have said it. Many pro-choice people have aired their opinions. Apparently, this issue, which has divided the country for 30 years isn’t particularly important to you, and that would be ok too, if you would only stop grousing.

    Since you don’t approve of our discussion, what do you suggest?Your ‘blog’ is full of tripe about Ralph Nader (and horrid new-age music). Would you like to talk about how Ralph Nader has held the third party movement back for 20 years while enriching himself and mistreating his employees? Perhaps you’d like to explain how, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans are religious, people should be accused of being theocrats the moment they use moral traditions based on religion to aswer moral questions.

    David, I don’t think you contribute here very often. You are now free to go back to wherever you came from.

  22. John Chance Says:


    St. Paul chose not to marry

    Jesus did not marry either.

    so, what is your point? Drawn out to normal conclusion, both the Savior and one of the greatest evangelists of all time stopped children from being conceived and born.

    Here’s a tip-it is not abnormal to not marry. One is not an animal and can control lusts.

    Get off Catholic moaning and groaning. We are teh only ones to speak out against contraception, abortion, etc with one voice (ignore the others, they have fallen away-Nancy Pelosi, Francis Kessling, etc.) Rome ahs spoken, the matter is closed.

    Please proceed to collect your tinfoil hat.

  23. General Lee Says:

    I’m sorry it was defeated. I hope Jore has a ‘Plan B’.

    I think Jore is against Plan B.

  24. General Lee Says:

    TN lawmaker proposes change to abortion law

  25. General Lee Says:

    Would you like to talk about how Ralph Nader has held the third party movement back for 20 years while enriching himself and mistreating his employees?

  26. matt Says:

    The TN bill is vengeful and won’t save any lives. As I understand it, it’s just making the medical records of women who have had abortions public. I think that’s ridiculous. If you have a problem with abortion (like I do) ban it! Don’t publicly shame women in a way that violates everything we believe about privacy in America.

  27. Cody Quirk Says:

    I think Jore is against Plan B.

    =So you’re saying that Jore isn’t going to try to pass any more Pro-Life legislation? Is that it?

  28. Joe Says:

    I think General Lee is being facetious. Plan B is president Bush’s “baby murder via pharmaceutical” plan.

  29. Cody Quirk Says:

    Well, you’re the defeatist.
    Saving any baby isn’t important if you cannot have it your way.

Leave a Reply