Montana citizens were exposed last week to a major distortion an AP writer (name not listed in paper). Over 63 witnesses, including those from our group, Montana ProLife Coalition, went to Helena 2/11/09 to testify on behalf of unborn children and women hurt by abortion. We were proponents of Senate Bill 46 and came from all walks of life and age ranging from youth to the elderly. The opponents of the bill, by contrast, numbered 8 and were paid professional witnesses.

      The gist of SB 46 is that protection of unborn children is a compelling state interest that overrides the right to privacy. It would add to article II, section 10 Right to Privacy the following underlined portion…”The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest. The protection of unborn human life is a compelling state interest.

      There are self-righteous, love-lacking supporters of both the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" standpoints. On the "prolife" side, there are also many of us who are well aware of our own weaknesses and mistakes and have tremendous loving concern and compassion for pregnant women in difficult psychosocial situations. This does not impact our stand that it should not be a legalized personal decision to destroy an unborn child any more than it should be legal to snuff out your life or mine.

      This addition, reflected in the underlined portion, would be brought to the people to vote for or against it November 2010. In other words, this bill would not be instated if passed by the 2/3 majority of our representatives, it would simply be put on the ballot.

      Printed in The Daily Interlake 2/12/09, the AP reporter wrote: “Long lines of anti-abortion and abortion rights advocates debated in front of a Senate panel”, that the bill would “force courts to recognize restrictions on abortions in future cases,” and “supporters argued that abortions should be banned because life begins at conception.”

      Distortion #1: The paid opposition numbering 8 didn’t even have a line. The John and Jane Q public 63 witnesses include those that signed in. There were probably 10 or more additional that testified but didn’t sign in, more than that that were there but didn’t testify. Proponents took close to an hour and a half to complete their testimony. #2: This bill wouldn’t “force” anything since it is not a law. Passage would put it on the ballot, and even if the majority of Montanans voted it in, it is still not a law. #3: The proponents arguments were not limited to “life begins at conception,” but included complex legal language such as the unconstitutionality of judicial supremacy, a discussion of unborn child development and abortion techniques, women hurt and mislead by the abortion, abuse of the right to privacy historically leading to most human injustices, the compelling state interest including financial and the balancing the age of the population, rational arguments about personhood of the unborn, and more.

      I wrote to the CEO of the Associated Press in New York to express grave disappointment on the part of the Montana ProLife Coalition board. Such misrepresentation reveals bias and is the main reason the pubic has a progressively lower opinion of the press. The credibility of AP reporting is shot. When we are at the point where truth doesn’t matter, we are in big trouble.

      We will be in Helena for SB 406 this Thursday 2/19 and hope for accurate reporting this time.

Annie Bukacek MD