CI-128 introduces new dangers

 Proponents of CI-128 frame the initiative as the only way to protect abortion rights. But let’s be clear: Montanans already have strong protections for abortion under our state constitution. Since the Armstrong v. State case in 1999, Montana’s Supreme Court held that the state Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion before fetal viability, based on the privacy clause. And despite recent legislative efforts to impose restrictions—such as banning abortions after 20 weeks—Montana courts have consistently struck down all these laws as unconstitutional, firmly securing abortion access across the state. 

Instead of safeguarding existing rights, CI-128’s vague and radical language would remove important protections that many Montanans, including pro-choice supporters, agree with, like limits on late-term abortions and the state’s ability to regulate procedures for the safety of both the mother and the unborn child. 

The initiative’s language allows any individual to perform an abortion without state-level standards or oversight to define who is qualified to perform abortions. Additionally, CI-128 specifies a patient has no legal recourse when care is incompetent, leaving women vulnerable to substandard care and accountability for those inflicting harm. 

Stigmatizing words suggest that abortion access is under immediate threat in order to elicit fear and support for the initiative. In reality, CI-128 doesn’t protect abortion rights, but introduces new dangers by removing widely-endorsed, mindful regulations that protect women.  

Montanans deserve better than emotionally charged rhetoric pushing reckless changes. We value thoughtful decision-making based on facts, not fear, and CI-128 should be treated the same way.  

— Rep. Amy Regier, Kalispell