‘Right to be let alone’: Montana Supreme Court unanimously extends abortion rights against latest GOP efforts, rejects ‘excessive governmental interfe

[SavannahMann]

In other words they made shit up.

There is no right for women to kill their unborn child.

If it’s all about “privacy“ then why involve a doctor and abortion clinic?

Well the State Constitution says there is a right to privacy.

Section 10. Right of privacy, MCA

leg.mt.gov

And the question was decided in 1999 by the Montana Supreme Court.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/1489482.html

As usual, the Courts decided the issues based upon precedent of cases that came before.

So yes. Women have the Right to an Abortion in Montana based upon the State Constitution and precedent cases.

 

[dblack]

It's the MAGAt alt right that has little tolerance for personal liberty.

Oh. I forgot.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Oh. I forgot.

So often, yes, you do.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If it’s all about “privacy“ then why involve a doctor and abortion clinic?

First, see #41 above
Next, you've earned an AI lecture:

Actually, the issue extends beyond just privacy concerns. The involvement of doctors and clinics in abortion procedures is essential for ensuring the safety and well-being of women seeking these services. Access to qualified healthcare providers is crucial to prevent unsafe and unregulated practices. The decision made by the Montana State Supreme Court reflects a dedication to upholding individual rights and protecting women's reproductive health. It's important to consider the complexities of these matters beyond just simplistic arguments about privacy.

Lastly,

why involve

Bathrooms?
Bedrooms?
Clothes?
Doors?
Lights?
Shades?
Vents?
Walls?

Why not schedule your next doctor visit
Down a well?
In the road?
Naked?
On Mt. Everest?
Up a tree?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Abortion clinics offer the right service in the right environment by skilled professionals.

 

[BackAgain]

Preborn.. heh... that's a new one.

No. It’s pretty old actually.

 

[Libby von H]

Looks like the Montana State Supreme Court did not get the right-wing memo!

MSN

The Montana Supreme Court unanimously extended abortion protections in the state on Friday – amid an ongoing effort by the GOP governor and legislators to erode women’s medical rights.
In a 7-0 decision, the Treasure State’s highest court sided with an advanced practice nurse practitioner and a clinician who challenged a 2005 law that restricted who could provide abortion services.
“Under Montana’s Constitution, the right of individual privacy—that is, the right of personal autonomy or the right to be let alone—is fundamental,” the court noted, citing precedent. “It is, perhaps, one of the most important rights guaranteed to the citizens of this State, and its separate textual protection in our Constitution reflects Montanans’ historical abhorrence and distrust of excessive governmental interference in their personal lives.”
Earlier, a district court invalidated that same law, “Control of Practice of Abortion,” which restricts providers of abortion care to physicians and physician assistants, saying that the legislature violated a woman’s “fundamental right of privacy to seek abortion care from a qualified health care provider of her choosing” when enacting it.
Earlier this month, the Montana legislature passed – and Gov. Greg Gianforte signed – a series of laws to roll back women’s abortion rights – including an effort to further strengthen the law just found unconstitutional by limiting abortions to physicians alone. That law would likely be considered a dead letter.
Republicans also passed a bill that aims to undo the precedent, the 1999 Armstrong case, on which the state’s highest court relied in deciding the latest case, stylized as Weems v. Montana.
That law will also likely be overturned if and when the court takes up the matter.

I am thinking that Montana's great Constitutional Lawyer will show the foolishness of what you say. You must know him : Rob Natelson
Stay tuned for your comeuppance

 

[Libby von H]

Abortion clinics offer the right service in the right environment by skilled professionals.

a grim-faced baby killer, just what the world needs.

Here is an ex-abortionist
Try a few, it will make even you sick to your stomach.
Many are the very bottom of the medical profession and that is why they do abortions.
Women suffer greatly afterwards
and the first feminists who became doctors cursed the inhumanity of it

• First Female Physicians OPPOSED Abortion – Feminists for Life

First Female Physicians OPPOSED Abortion​

EX-ABORTIONISTS

Former Abortion Providers - Pro-Life Action League

In 1987, the Pro-Life Action League hosted the first Meet the Abortion Providers Conference. We invited former abortionists to tell...

prolifeaction.org

 

[SavannahMann]

a grim-faced baby killer, just what the world needs.

Here is an ex-abortionist
Try a few, it will make even you sick to your stomach.
Many are the very bottom of the medical profession and that is why they do abortions.
Women suffer greatly afterwards
and the first feminists who became doctors cursed the inhumanity of it

• First Female Physicians OPPOSED Abortion – Feminists for Life

First Female Physicians OPPOSED Abortion​

EX-ABORTIONISTS

Former Abortion Providers - Pro-Life Action League

In 1987, the Pro-Life Action League hosted the first Meet the Abortion Providers Conference. We invited former abortionists to tell...

prolifeaction.org

Ok. So the words of a former matter the most. Question. What about former Christians? Does that mean we must abolish Christianity?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ok. So the words of a former matter the most. Question. What about former Christians? Does that mean we must abolish Christianity?

Just what the world needs. Ex-grim-faced Jesus killers. I hear they somehow keep drinking his blood and eating his flesh. Ghouls! It's enough to make even you sick to your stomach.

 

[Libby von H]

Ok. So the words of a former matter the most. Question. What about former Christians? Does that mean we must abolish Christianity?

Don't worry two gross errors were made previoulsly by the Montana Supreme court. Ready, Lawyers REmember the election integrity case in Montana

====> ONE ERROR
here’s some red meat for constitutional wonks. In treating the state constitution, the court made two fundamental mistakes that competent jurists would not make.
First, it relied heavily on the transcript of the convention that drafted the state constitution. But that convention merely made a proposal; it did not convert that proposal into law. The people purportedly did that when they voted on June 6, 1972. (The results of the election were disputed.)

When Montanans voted, the convention transcript was still unpublished and unavailable. So the court should have focused on what the voters were told—which was somewhat different from what went on in the convention.

TWO ERROR
The bench also erred in applying the wrong constitutional tests. It claimed that under the state constitution, voting is a “fundamental right,” and it applied rules applied to other fundamental rights, such as free speech.

But voting is not like free speech. Unlike restrictions on speech, voting rules traditionally play a central role in promoting good governance. They do so by limiting the franchise to mature people who usually vote in person and know and have a stake in their communities.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Don't worry two gross errors were made previoulsly by the Montana Supreme court. Ready, Lawyers REmember the election integrity case in Montana

====> ONE ERROR
here’s some red meat for constitutional wonks. In treating the state constitution, the court made two fundamental mistakes that competent jurists would not make.
First, it relied heavily on the transcript of the convention that drafted the state constitution. But that convention merely made a proposal; it did not convert that proposal into law. The people purportedly did that when they voted on June 6, 1972. (The results of the election were disputed.)

When Montanans voted, the convention transcript was still unpublished and unavailable. So the court should have focused on what the voters were told—which was somewhat different from what went on in the convention.

TWO ERROR
The bench also erred in applying the wrong constitutional tests. It claimed that under the state constitution, voting is a “fundamental right,” and it applied rules applied to other fundamental rights, such as free speech.

But voting is not like free speech. Unlike restrictions on speech, voting rules traditionally play a central role in promoting good governance. They do so by limiting the franchise to mature people who usually vote in person and know and have a stake in their communities.

You wish to limit the knowledge needed to make the best decision...rather than the decision YOU think is best.
2nd guessing the voters of the 18th century--in order to create a different fundamental precedent just isn't on..most days---and in most courts.
One could make the case that all voters are lied to--some of the time, at the very least.

BTW, just because an election result was 'disputed' does not mean it wasn't fair--or correct....it just means the loser and his/her minions whined.
As this happens all the time, it should have no weight at all.

I can think of many cases where limiting free speech could be seen as 'good governance'. The protection of classified material, for one.

 

[Libby von H]

Looks like the Montana State Supreme Court did not get the right-wing memo!

MSN

The Montana Supreme Court unanimously extended abortion protections in the state on Friday – amid an ongoing effort by the GOP governor and legislators to erode women’s medical rights.
In a 7-0 decision, the Treasure State’s highest court sided with an advanced practice nurse practitioner and a clinician who challenged a 2005 law that restricted who could provide abortion services.
“Under Montana’s Constitution, the right of individual privacy—that is, the right of personal autonomy or the right to be let alone—is fundamental,” the court noted, citing precedent. “It is, perhaps, one of the most important rights guaranteed to the citizens of this State, and its separate textual protection in our Constitution reflects Montanans’ historical abhorrence and distrust of excessive governmental interference in their personal lives.”
Earlier, a district court invalidated that same law, “Control of Practice of Abortion,” which restricts providers of abortion care to physicians and physician assistants, saying that the legislature violated a woman’s “fundamental right of privacy to seek abortion care from a qualified health care provider of her choosing” when enacting it.
Earlier this month, the Montana legislature passed – and Gov. Greg Gianforte signed – a series of laws to roll back women’s abortion rights – including an effort to further strengthen the law just found unconstitutional by limiting abortions to physicians alone. That law would likely be considered a dead letter.
Republicans also passed a bill that aims to undo the precedent, the 1999 Armstrong case, on which the state’s highest court relied in deciding the latest case, stylized as Weems v. Montana.
That law will also likely be overturned if and when the court takes up the matter.

Wow, what an uninformed clueless (basically misleading) statement

Here is Montana's greatest Constitutional mind on that

Critiquing the Montana Supreme Court - Independence Institute

The Montana Supreme Court may be the least disciplined appeals court in the country. Rob Natelson's recent paper outlines the problems.

i2i.org

 

[SavannahMann]

Wow, what an uninformed clueless (basically misleading) statement

Here is Montana's greatest Constitutional mind on that

Critiquing the Montana Supreme Court - Independence Institute

The Montana Supreme Court may be the least disciplined appeals court in the country. Rob Natelson's recent paper outlines the problems.

i2i.org

I read about half of the attached 89 page rant. I got bored. It was too similar to the insane Sovereign Citizen complaints.

To that point it was a long litany of this was done wrong, that was done wrong, and this is basically unfair.

So out of curiosity I looked up how the Montana Constitution can be amended. It seems pretty straightforward. A legislator proposes the amendment. 2/3 of the legislation approves. It goes to the voters to be ratified.

Now your greatest constitutional thinker. I’m not sure why you call him that. Normally such claims are made when someone wins a lot or gets people thinking about things differently. In this case, as near as I can tell, it is because you agree with him.

If he was such a great thinker you would expect to see him have influence on the issues. He doesn’t seem to be.

The obvious solution if you disagree with the decision would be to amend the Constitution. So I checked and sure enough, we see why the Amendment isn’t in the works.

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

Montana is pretty close to the national average of 60% of the people supporting the right to choose.

And as usual the anti-Abortion folks don’t want the people to decide. They prefer malleable politicians who they can influence to make the decision.

In that light, the tirade from your greatest thinker is merely the ranting of a guy who knows he’s on the unpopular side of an issue.