Montana Legislative Referendum 131 is on the verge of failing. This has caused a number of people to write comments about how we are lost as a society. They’re not wrong.
LR-131 was given the short title of “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.”
In Section 2, the legislation has the following wording::
“(1) The state asserts a compelling interest in protecting the life of any infant born alive following an abortion.
(2) An infant born alive is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the state and is entitled to the protections of the laws, including the right to appropriate and reasonable medical care and treatment.
(3) In the absence of proper legal protections, newly born infants who have survived abortions have been denied appropriate lifesaving or life-sustaining medical care and treatment and have been left to die.”
It defines being “born alive” as a human infant that has completely been expulsed or extracted from the mother at any stage in development. It further states there is breathing, a heartbeat or definite movement of voluntary muscles. It doesn’t matter whether the umbilical cord has yet to be cut. Finally, the definition states it doesn’t matter whether the expulsion or extraction is the result of natural or induced labor, a C-section, abortion or another method.
Section 4 provides protection of infants born alive. Once born alive, this explicitly states the infant “must be treated as a legal person” and has the “same rights to medically appropriate and reasonable care and treatment.” Health care providers who are present shall take “medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life and health of the infant.”
The legislation makes it a felony for the health care provider to not provide such medical care.
As of the writing of my column this referendum was failing by 5%. What does that say about the people who are voting?
Let me start by saying I don’t view Montana as an overly conservative state. In fact, I think it is a bit more on the liberal side. They have a Democrat as a senator and until 2020 they had a Democrat governor for the previous four terms.
In our current world where nothing means what it says, a group called “Compassion for Montana Families” actively campaigned against this referendum. The organization spent more than $1 million to fight a law that would criminalize the killing of babies. Compassion? In the words of Inigo Montoya: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
On their main web page, in a very large font, the group writes “LR-131 would be an extreme government mandate that allows politicians to interfere with deeply personal and difficult medical decisions that should be left between families and their healthcare providers.”
What is deeply personal and difficult about allowing a living human being to live? Nothing. If you believe the argument, “my body, my choice” then after a live birth the infant is no longer in the mother’s body, so why would it still be her choice?
I find it deeply troubling that anyone would believe that it is OK to leave an infant to die. Seriously, I want to hear what kind of twisted arguments justify such a disgusting act. There are a couple other groups in favor of allowing babies to die. Human Rights Campaign PAC, Montanans for Choice and Planned Parenthood of Montana. We have two abortion advocate organizations who want to kill babies, even after birth. Also, what’s up with the ironic usage of the words “human rights”?
Maybe you believe a “clump of cells” is not a human and is OK to be terminated. What argument do you use to justify allowing a baby to die after a live birth?
Anderson was the co-host and producer of a conservative talk radio show before hanging up the headphones. He has a degree in philosophy and enjoys photography, woodworking, and sports. When not computer programming, he volunteers in the community.
