"NO" on CI-128
A State-Sized Little "Roe"
Dear Friends,
Time for another edition of The Quarter Inch! We’ve been in this groove for some time and it’s worth reminding everybody the format of this publication. On Wednesday I send out The Quarter Inch, which is designed for some shorter, quick commentary on current events. Yes, sadly this means having to talk politics, particularly during an election cycle. Friday is for the flagship Square Inch, where I try to write something more durable that will prove of more enduring value. I occasionally will drop an Off The Shelf feature to highlight a book I’d like to share with you. And then there’s the roving Pipe & Dram, where I invite you into my study for a little “visit”—which is just me monologuing about something I’m studying or thinking about, usually prompted by something I am reading. Now that I mention it, it has been awhile since our last Pipe & Dram visit, so look for one of those soon!
With all that out of the way, let’s dive in. I am going to cover some political items in descending order of most important to least.
Voters in Montana are now receiving their ballots, and so it is incumbent upon me to provide some commentary on the most important question on the ballot: CI-128, the “Right To Abortion Initiative.” This is a proposal to amend the state constitution to forever enshrine abortion rights into law.
It will not surprise you to know that I am vehemently opposed to this measure. I am pro-life. I am so first and foremost (and, if I’m really honest, period) because I am a Christian, and Christians from the very earliest days of the church were universally known as the people who do not “destroy their offspring”—the pagans did that, routinely. Christians, by contrast, invented the orphanage and rescued infants from the trash piles where they were left to die. We do so because human beings are created in the image and likeness of God and are therefore of infinite value and worthy of protection. Of course, I could also go on about a lot of other factors—say, biology, specifically embryology. A lot of people who are loudly and proudly “pro-science” get very, very uninterested in science when it comes to reproduction. I could also go on at length about political realities—a multibillion dollar industry is deeply invested in people talking about marginal and thorny questions like what about ectopic pregnancies? What about rape? Incest? Yes, yes; keep them talking about exceptions to the rule just long enough to establish the rule—the one that makes them billions of dollars off the lives of babies and the backs of desperate people.
I cannot tell you how my heart sank when I once drove by a group of people collecting the necessary signatures to get this initiative on the ballot. It was a family, and the “enlightened” well-dressed upper class parents had their children standing on the sidewalk holding happy, brightly colored signs to “protect reproductive rights.” Their kids. Which one of those precious souls, I wondered, did their parents wish they could erase? It was the same feeling I had when I saw an image of a famous female musician playing with her toddler while wearing a shirt that said, “Proudly Pro-Choice.” What a message for that kid, and I wonder if in his later years he might look back at the photo and hear it: I love you, son, but it is also important for me to broadcast how much I love the fact that I could have disposed of you had I felt like it.
But let me not preach to the choir. I don’t want to defeat CI-128 by a squeaker, ginning up friendly turnout by rattling off the usual points. I want it overwhelmingly rejected, and that is going to take persuading some people who aren’t already on my team. I want to tell you why, even if you are not a dyed-in-the-wool pro-lifer, you should vote against CI-128.
This initiative is anti-democratic. How could I say this when it is on a … ballot!? Because CI-128 is a brazen attempt to reproduce (ahem) the exact same regime of Roe v. Wade at the state level. I mean literally so. One of the many big problems with Roe was that it effectively took the issue of abortion out of the democratic process. That was actually its rationale and design. The people were not allowed to debate the issue in a way that mattered because it was (on paper) a constitutional, not statutory, issue. If CI-128 passes, our representatives in Helena will be unable to have very important debates about a host of relevant matters (see below) because it will forever be completely out of their hands. Let me say it bluntly: CI-128 is an attempt for one faction to “win” for good, in one fell swoop; to remove it from normal legislative processes so that there can be no good-faith debate about the merits of various approaches to the issue of abortion. This is a means to simply write one side’s view into the governing constitution and thereby never have to debate the difficult issues at all. It avoids, not engages in, the democratic process. It is, in a word, cowardly. And, I should add, it is being attempted by way of some of the most appallingly misleading (read: false) advertising I’ve ever seen. Which ought to make you wonder how strong the argument is on the merits. But you never hear that argument.
Moreover, this will not settle the matter—not by a long shot. Instead of bringing peace it will bring unending culture war to Montana. Just as Roe inflamed America at large for fifty years, CI-128 will do the same and we will have battle after battle of referenda and initiatives every election cycle. Just like Roe did, every judicial race will be Armageddon, with hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into this state. Are you not tired of the dozen flyers you are getting in the mail every single day? That is what happens when you play the anti-democratic zero-sum game: everything is at stake, rather than merely some things being at stake.
Were you at all bothered by any aspect of Roe? The fact that it (along with its sister case, Doe v. Bolton) essentially allowed abortion at any time for any reason (via the completely nebulous “health” exception—which CI-128 retains, of course), all the way up to the very moment of birth? Be honest with yourself: do you think maybe six months is an awfully long time for a pregnant woman to figure out whether to have an abortion or not? I mean, is a fifteen week ban or some such really that onerous? Should we maybe hurry that decision along? Four months? Three? Or maybe there should be a waiting period before making a momentous decision like that? Perhaps there should be some outside counseling required? How about an ultrasound? Should the abortionist, who has a direct financial interest, be granted carte blanche authority to determine whether it is “necessary” because of a “health” concern? Is mental health a good enough reason? What about minors? School nurses need parental permission to give a student an aspirin; what about a risky and invasive surgery? Should we have a process to try to figure out whether she’s being coerced into it by a boyfriend or, worse, a pimp? What should the medical standards be at these surgery centers? Does it even need to be a “surgery center”? Do they need hospital admittance privileges to operate? What should the regulations be? Should they be inspected? How often? By whom? Should aborting an in utero child with a heartbeat bother us? How about the point at which the baby feels pain? What about viable babies capable of surviving outside the womb? Look: you may have strong opinions on all of this, as do I, but you must admit these are all pretty good and important questions. And the answers, in a healthy society, ought to garner the support and/or acquiescence of a substantial majority of our population.
Guess what? If CI-128 passes nobody ever gets to discuss or debate the answers to any of those questions. Planned Parenthood will answer them by fiat. And nobody elected them. (Yet. Vote for CI-128 and you will have.)
It is in the best interests of our state and our communities to come to a real consensus, not to shortcut the very process that can bring consensus. Taking all abortion-related questions out of the domain of representative legislative debate is fundamentally un-American and positively injurious to social harmony. In fact, next time around we need a referendum to ensure that a constitutional amendment by popular initiative cannot be made in this state without at least a two-thirds majority. You owe it to the rest of your fellow citizens to convince them. We all live here. This state belongs to all of us. You are required—or you ought to be—to attempt to persuade people. Instead, CI-128 is an attempt to sneak one policy platform among many (the one preferred by a massive self-interested industry pouring millions of dollars’ worth of advertising into our mailboxes every single day) in through the back door in order to then to slam the front door and lock it shut.
Finally, the political messaging in favor of CI-128 is uniformly to scare people about all sorts of marginal and difficult situations. I urge you to notice what doesn’t ever get mentioned: what is the policy for the normal situation? Normal, healthy baby; normal, healthy mother? CI-128 is not enshrining a policy of abortion-related exceptions like rape, incest, or life-of-the-mother or even “health” of the mother. It is enshrining conception-to-live-birth abortion for anyone at any time for any reason whatsoever. Don’t be easily distracted from what is happening right in front of your nose.
As for those exceptional cases, we can have a conversation, as things stand at the moment. But in the world of Roe, which some want to bring to Montana, we could acquiesce to every conceivable reasonable exception and its devotees would still refuse any restrictions whatsoever. Which leads me to believe it isn’t about “rape” and “incest” and the mother’s health at all. They just want abortions. And they want you to celebrate it and be complicit in what is always—always—a terrible tragedy.
And, if I may, if you are a person inclined to support CI-128 as an ideological matter, you really ought to reconsider your views. They are not “enlightened,” but rather a return to a very dark age where the very notion of “human rights” didn’t exist. I’d be happy to discuss it with you, because that’s what we Americans are supposed to do. It might be uncomfortable, to be sure. I will ask why, if there were a multibillion dollar industry dedicated to the slaughter of puppies, you would march and riot in a spittle-flecked rage. How dare they do that to the fur-babies!? But switch the subject to actual babies, it’s all “You Go Girl!” I think you ought to ask yourself what that means.
Vote “NO” on CI-128. If not because every human being has a right to life regardless of their size or maturity level or where they happen to reside, then because it is the worst, most destructive, and short-lived way to settle our civic and social differences.
Also here in Montana the Tim Sheehy versus Jon Tester showdown continues and I can safely say we are all very, very excited for it to be over. The wall-to-wall advertising is exhausting. A pollster floated a mystery poll on X yesterday showing Tester up +2, but then declined to release any details of this “poll” whatsoever, so take it with a fifty-pound bag of rock salt. Don’t get me wrong: I’ve long thought that Tester could pull this out, but a month ago the polls were indicating him down -7 points and the DNC was thinking about pulling their resources from the race and trying to compete elsewhere. I am doubtful Tester is enjoying that kind of a surge.
It is the most important race in November because control of the Senate rides on it, and to my mind gridlock in Washington is the very best-case scenario we can expect for at least the next couple of years. Handing a potential Kamala Harris administration the means to do dangerous things like blowing up the filibuster or expanding the Supreme Court is a terrible idea. A Republican Senate is the backstop.
Regarding that “potential” Harris administration, the Presidential election is going to be really close. Nate Silver had a great explanation the other day regarding his polling averages. People instinctively think that when he puts a race at 55% to 45% that is talking about raw vote share—i.e., popular vote numbers, as in 55 out of 100 people are voting for one or the other. But that isn’t what it means. It means that the race is a coin flip or a roll of the dice. It means if you flip a coin, it will land “heads” 55 percent of the time. Are you going to bet a lot of money on those odds? No. It is a very slight advantage. And the polling averages suggest that this race is not outside of the 55/45 spectrum, and in that sort of race little things at the margins make the difference on election day.
Harris and Walz are playing “prevent” defense—eschewing all but the most fawning of interviews, making no real policy proposals at all—but there’s still ten minutes left on the clock. That’s quite the gamble, but in their defense I also don’t see any alternative. She is incapable of talking about policy without embarrassing herself, so what else is there to do but smile (and cackle, of course) and talk about “joy”?
On the other side, MAGA world is currently going with—no, really—the Federal Government engineered Hurricane Helene to destroy red states and kill Republicans.
Someday this miserable clown show will end. But only when the people decide it ends. So, I encourage you to join me in saying No. Really: No.
Thanks for reading The Quarter Inch. Have a great rest of your week!
Courageous, informative, and eloquent, Brian.