#montana supreme court

[whenweallvote]

Good news in voting rights coming out of Montana! 🎉

Yesterday, the Montana Supreme Court struck down four major voter suppression laws passed in 2021, which:

🔹Eliminated same-day voter registration in most cases

🔹Made it more difficult to vote with a student ID

🔹Outlawed absentee ballots for new voters who would turn 18 by Election Day

🔹Banned paid ballot collection and reduced other forms of ballot return assistance

The Court’s decision is a MAJOR victory for Montana voters, specifically Native American voters, young voters, and voters with disabilities who would be disproportionately impacted by these laws.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Women won a battle over abortion rights in Montana on Friday, after the state Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision that a law banning advanced-practice registered nurses from performing early-stage abortions was unconstitutional.

Montana Supreme Court Judge Laurie McKinnon wrote in the court’s opinion that the “state has failed to meet its burden” showing that advanced-practice registered nurses (APRNs) providing abortion care “present a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The state has failed to present any evidence that demonstrates abortions provided by APRNs include more risk than those provided by physicians and physicians assistants.”

McKinnon continued: “The district court correctly determined that no genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the safety and efficacy of APRNs providing early abortion care.”

Plaintiffs Hellen Weems, owner of All Families Healthcare in Whitefish, and another woman identified as Jane Doe, are both APRNs. Weems did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Medication and aspiration are the most common forms of early abortion care. The medications used are mifepristone and misoprostal. An aspiration abortion involves inserting a tube through the cervix into the uterus and using suction to remove uterine contents.

The state argued that while APRNs can perform an abortion, they are not trained to handle complications that may arise.

One of the state's experts, Dr. George Mulcaire-Jones, a family medicine and obstetrics physician in Butte, said the aspiration method involves the removal of tissue from the uterus with instruments, which can cause bleeding, cramping and possible infection. He said that there is an unacceptable risk to women when the abortions are performed without emergency backup policies, such as when APRNs perform the procedures in their offices.

Mulcaire-Jones also said that even medication abortions carry risks, including hemorrhage and bleeding, which could require surgical care beyond what a APRN could provide.

Bolstering Mulcaire-Jones’ views was Dr. Kathi Aultman, an ob-gyn licensed in Florida who serves as a fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists.

“Allowing less qualified practitioners to perform abortions, especially when they cannot handle the serious and life-threatening complications that can occur, creates an unacceptable risk for patients at any location, which expands exponentially in rural area without the necessary facilities and expertise to handle complications,” Aultman said.

One of the plaintiff’s experts, Dr. Suzan Goodman, disagreed.

“Legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the United States. Complication rates of abortion are similar to or lower than other outpatient procedures,” Goodman, a California-licensed family medicine physician with a master's degree in public health, said.

The state Board of Medical Examiners has previously concluded that “medication and aspiration abortion procedures are not significantly different than the procedures, medications and surgeries the nurse practitioners currently perform without significant issues.”

McKinnon ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, citing the Montana Constitution's guarantee of the right of privacy to seek abortion care.

"The state argues that, while APRNs may be able to perform the abortion procedure, they are not capable or qualified to handle the 'unacceptable' risk of complications arising from an abortion. However, the same risk of complications exists in miscarriage care, which the state has not argued presents a threat to public health and safety when performed by APRNs," she wrote.

[kp777]

By Micah Drew, Flathead Beacon

Montana Free Press

June 5, 2023

Rikki Held’s last name has been referenced in legal briefs, news articles and water cooler conversations for two years now, since the court case Held v. State of Montana was filed in Montana’s First Judicial District Court. Held was one of 16 youth plaintiffs who filed the 2020 lawsuit against several Montana government agencies, and its governor, alleging that the implementation of two energy-related policies is an infringement of the youths’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. Since she was the only plaintiff of age when it was filed, it’s her name that will be forever attached to the decision made in the landmark case.

[reasonsforhope]

Article Date: 7 June 2023

Climate litigation in the US could be entering a “game changing” new phase, experts believe, with a spate of lawsuits around the country set to advance after a recent supreme court decision, and with legal teams preparing for a trailblazing trial in a youth-led court case beginning next week.

The first constitutional climate lawsuit in the US goes to trial on Monday next week (12 June) in Helena, Montana, based on a legal challenge by 16 young plaintiffs, ranging in age from five to 22, against the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies.

A federal judge ruled last week that a federal constitutional climate lawsuit, also brought by youth, can go to trial.

More than two dozen US cities and states are suing big oil alleging the fossil fuel industry knew for decades about the dangers of burning coal, oil and gas, and actively hid that information from consumers and investors.

The supreme court cleared the way for these cases to advance with rulings in April and May that denied oil companies’ bids to move the venue of such lawsuits from state courts to federal courts.

Hoboken, New Jersey, last month added racketeering charges against oil majors to its 2020 climate lawsuit, becoming the first case to employ the approach in a state court and following a federal lawsuit filed by Puerto Rico last November.

the new forms of climate litigation are different, as they grapple not with particular projects’ emissions, but on responsibility for the climate crisis itself. Sokol, who dubbed these new suits “climate accountability litigation”, says though they will not alone lower emissions, they could help reshape climate plans.

In the US, this litigation has taken a variety of forms; perhaps the best known cases are based on constitutional rights and brought by youth.

One of those cases, Held v Montana, is based on the state’s constitutional guarantees to a clean and healthy environment, which were enshrined in the 1970s and which the plaintiffs say the state has violated by supporting fossil fuels. It will next week become the first-ever constitutional climate lawsuit to go to trial in the US.

Held v Montana followed the highly publicized 2015 Juliana v United States in which 21 young people from Oregon sued the US government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by enacting policies that drove and exacerbated the climate crisis. The case, which like the Montana suit was filed by the non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust, calls on federal officials to phase out fossil fuels.

Last week, a US district court ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs, allowing that their claims can be decided at trial in open court.

Litigation based on state constitutional rights, also filed by Our Children’s Trust, is currently pending in four other states. One of those cases brought by Hawaii youth is set to go to trial, possibly as soon as this fall.

Another set of lawsuits in the US allege that the fossil fuel industry has for decades known about the dangers of burning coal, oil and gas, and actively hid that information from consumers and investors. Since 2017, seven states, 35 municipalities, the District of Columbia, and one industry trade association have sued major fossil fuel corporations and lobbying groups on these grounds.

In late April, lawyers for the city of Hoboken amended a 2020 complaint to allege that the defendants violated New Jersey’s racketeering laws by conspiring to sow doubt about climate change.

It marked the first-ever state-level lawsuit of its kind, following one last year in which 16 Puerto Rico cities brought federal racketeering charges, originally used to bring down criminal enterprises like the mafia, against big oil.

Unlike some previous cases, Hoboken’s amended lawsuit focuses not only on past misinformation, but also on contemporary greenwashing – something that could feature prominently in future cases.

A study last month examined litigation against fossil fuel majors and found that the filing of a new case or a court decision against a corporation took a slight toll on their finances. Novel developments – including a groundbreaking 2021 Netherlands court ruling ordering Shell to substantially slash its carbon emissions, and an unprecedented transnational claim filed in 2012 by a Peruvian farmer against a German energy company – yielded bigger blows.

Sankar, of Earthjustice, said he expects to see new forms of climate litigation in future years. “As the impact on states and localities increases, they are increasingly going to be looking for ways in which their state and local laws protect them,” he said.

(shinigami red links in this post go to The Guardian)

Article Date: 7 June 2023

Article Source: Dharna Noor for The Guardian

--

Thanks so much to @queerce for submitting!

[meteorologistaustenlonek]

How A Handful of Court Cases Could Give the Government More Power Over Social Media

"Together, these cases raise crucial questions about the government’s power to control the flow of information in social media spaces. The outcomes of these cases will influence #journalists’ access to information and ability to hold powerful entities to account. " #NiemanJournalismLab

[kaejames]

Montana Voters Defeated an Anti-Abortion measure

Montana voters defeated an anti-abortion measure that could have made infants born alive to be "legal persons" , require medical care to be provided to infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, attempted abortion, or another method and establish a $50,000 fine and/or 20 years in prison as the maximum penalty for violating the law.

[thesirencult]

YOU NEED PEOPLE LIKE ME / DARK PSYCHOLOGY

You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your f*****’ fingers and say, “That’s the bad guy.” So what that make you? Good? You’re not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie.

(Tony Montana, Scarface)

Most people can not handle their darker side. They can not handle their ego and their deepest desires. Now, I'm not telling you to become like Tony Montana. He was consumed by his vices and they run the show for him. I'm telling you to do what you what to do and to stop lying to yourself and hiding from your true nature.

A couple of years ago, I met a girl who had an obsession with finding a wealthy man. She did not care about anything else other than the money. In her defense, she grew up in a poor family where, her dad beat her mom up and he even did that while her mom was pregnant with her.

That girl was studying finance. She took up Arabic and wanted to work for off shore companies where she could find a husband. She specifically told me she wanted her husband to drive a Porsche which has more prestige than a BMW and buy her a BMW cause the woman should be beneath her husband. Overall she was "micey" in character. If you didn't know her you would think she was shy and religious, but. you should know better guys, these people have more ego problems than the most outspoken, egomaniac extrovert.

So, she looked "weak" but had an agenda. She also was trying to give off the "trad wife" vibe but salivated as soon as a man breathed her direction and shamed any woman who showcased her seductiveness.

A few days ago, she messaged me. She wanted to grab a coffee with me as she would be in town. I was surprised when I saw her. In the "kindest" way I can put it, she looked like women who run on every single rally around and fight for justice (nothing wrong with taht, but if you're following me I bet you get what I'm trying to convey). A white girl with Bob Marley braids! Yup, there it is!

She told me she had given up Arabic and no longer wanted to work in a big shipping corporation because that supported big oil and their agenda. She then preached to me about equality and why the left is supreme. Now, I'm pretty straightforward so I asked her, how and why her views changed. She wanted to own 3 cars and be a stay at home mom! She looked outside the window of the coffee shop and saw my parked car.

"Do you see this car?"

I said "Yeah, I see it."

"Whoever drives this car is a right wing egomaniac who doesn't care about the environment and just wants to flaunt their money." (my car is a hybrid you guys!)

"Do you drive?"

"No, I can not afford a license and my family owns only one car. Also, I'm scared of driving. Also, did I tell you I'm running on the elections with the *left wing side*. Will you vote for me? If I make it I'll get 2k per month plus health care benefits."

"That's my car. I was going to ask you, do you want to take the train home or will you ride with me?" I just wanted this meeting to bo over, to tell you the truth.

She came with me.

Wanna know why? Here is my hypothesis (and it ties in with Tony Montana's words):

99% of people give up on their dreams by age 23. In order to make it easier for them and help them soothe the guilt this breeds, they begin to drift to the opposite "side" of the court. Pornstars turn to trad wives. Playboys turn to "faithful" husbands who preach the word of the Lord. Money and power hungry individuals take up boring jobs and blame the rich and the goverment for everything. Men who can not pick up women turn to red pill guys and so on and so forth.

Most people can not handle their darker side. They can not handle their ego and their deepest desires. Now, I'm not telling you to become like Tony Montana, he was consumed by his vices and that's who runs the show. Either you run the show or someone else or something (an addiction) runs it for you.

We see all that often with sex. Body counts, "I can not find a good man/woman" etc. People who can not get what they want hate those that have the GUTS to get it.

If my acquaintance's beliefs are that strong why did she enjoy the drive in the luxury SUV? Why did she then ask me when are we going out again and if I can bring "that" guy friend who runs a tech start up?

Because they are not her beliefs. They are just a cover up. A mask.

We've all seen how happy some people get when a dreamer fails.

So, go one. Fail. You''ll succeed at some point. You're better than those who sit on the sidelines running their mouth.

They would want to be at your shoes. They would want to run free on the court.

Own that. Own yourself and run after your goals and desires. Fuck them.

[genderqueerpositivity]

Not to be controversial this morning, but I have to say that seeing this dramatic increase in discourse on my social media feeds because of pride month is hilariously sad.

We are currently seeing a massive surge in transphobia and homophobia.

Republican governors are passing anti-trans bills, literally harming trans people to build support for their party. Trans youth are losing their healthcare and being banned from playing sports. LGBTQ+ teachers in certain states are at risk of losing their jobs. The supreme court stands to dismantle the legal right to medical privacy, abortion, and bodily autonomy literally any day now, with marriage equality likely to follow.

Conservatives in North Carolina are threatening pride organizations for planning to host a drag queen story hour event, while Texas Republicans are seeking to ban such events entirely. Montana has made it almost impossible for trans people to correct their birth certificates and in Florida (already home to a "don't say gay" law) they want to ban Medicaid coverage for gender affirming care for everyone regardless of age. Last month South Carolina banned trans kids from playing on teams that align with their gender identity and everyone has already forgotten about it, while Ohio may soon pass a similar bill that could also force a kid whose gender is questioned to have a pelvic exam in order to continue playing on a girl's sports team.

Do you know what Republicans don't care about? They don't care if "aces are inherently lgbt" and they don't care if "queer is a slur". They don't give a shit about the differences between bisexual and pansexual and they don't give a fuck how many letters belong in the acronym, and they especially don't give a shit about "kink at pride" discourse because they already believe that we are all sinful deviant perverted gr/oom/ers and no amount of engaging in respectability politics will ever convince them otherwise.

LGBT community discourse is so fucking disconnected from reality. Republicans are really trying to make it impossible for us to exist, I'm over here worrying that my state government will pass the bill that will make it legal for medical professionals to refuse to treat me due to their "conscience" because I'm queer and trans, and folks in my Instagram feed are having flag discourse. It's fucking surreal.

[tomorrowusa]

Ohio voters handed anti-abortion Republicans a stinging defeat. Those voters approved Issue 1 which puts reproductive freedom into the Ohio Constitution. The just passed amendment also protects the right to contraception and fertility treatment.

Results are still coming in. But with 85% of the votes counted, about 55.5% of Ohioans voted to protect reproductive freedom. And most of the remaining uncounted votes come from large urban counties which approved Issue 1 with over 65% of the vote.

Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that ensures access to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care, the latest victory for abortion rights supporters since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Ohio became the seventh state where voters decided to protect abortion access after the landmark ruling and was the only state to consider a statewide abortion rights question this year. The outcome of the intense, off-year election could be a bellwether for 2024, when Democrats hope the issue will energize their voters and help President Joe Biden keep the White House. Voters in Arizona, Missouri and elsewhere are expected to vote on similar protections next year. Ohio’s constitutional amendment, on the ballot as Issue 1, included some of the most protective language for abortion access of any statewide ballot initiative since the Supreme Court’s ruling. Opponents had argued that the amendment would threaten parental rights, allow unrestricted gender surgeries for minors and revive “partial birth” abortions, which are federally banned. Before the Ohio vote, statewide initiatives in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont had either affirmed abortion access or turned back attempts to undermine the right. Issue 1 specifically declared an individual’s right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including birth control, fertility treatments, miscarriage and abortion.

It's a great victory for women and freedom in general. And it's a bad omen for GOP prospects in 2024.

Donald Trump carried Ohio both in 2016 and 2020. But the Republican insistence on controlling women's bodies will probably hurt the party there and elsewhere. And any attempt by the GOP to moderate its stand on abortion will result in major pushback by radical fundamentalist Christians who would like to return to the societal standards of the 17th century.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Internal Secret Service emails obtained by CREW show special agents in close communication with Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, while failing to acknowledge the group’s ties to white nationalists and clashes with law enforcement.

In September 2020, a Secret Service agent sent an email to others within the agency, informing them that he had just spoken to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes about an upcoming visit by then-President Trump to Fayetteville, NC. The agent, who referred to himself as “the unofficial liaison to the Oath Keepers (inching towards official),” described the group as “primarily retired law enforcement/former military members who are very pro-LEO [law enforcement officer] and Pro Trump. Their stated purpose is to provide protection and medical attention to Trump supporters if they come under attack by leftist groups.” He went on to say that Rhodes, “had specific questions and wanted to liaison [sic] with our personnel” and shared Rhodes’s cell phone number.

The emails obtained by CREW as part of an ongoing public records request offer only a snapshot of the communication between the Oath Keepers and the Secret Service. As they focus solely on the time period around the Fayetteville event, the extent of the contact Stewart Rhodes had with the agency remains unknown. The agent “inching towards” being the “official” liaison for Oath Keepers suggests a more longstanding relationship with Rhodes.

Another Secret Service agent spoke to Rhodes and informed the other agents that “their desire is to assist those attending the event make it to and from their cars safely. They are NOT there to demonstrate or push a political agenda.” In October 2022, a former member of the Oath Keepers testified that Rhodes had spoken to the Secret Service to coordinate around the rally, but an agency spokesman told CNN that, “The US Secret Service doesn’t have enough information to say whether or not this call actually took place.” These emails show that it did.

When one agent requested intelligence about the Oath Keepers another responded: “General searches revealed news articles that touched on the background of the founder Stewart Rhodes and the group. Rhodes has denounced White Nationalists ideals while sharing his dislike for ANTIFA…The group claims it is a local community response team for natural or civil disorders.” Agents also noted that a Facebook account associated with the group “contained pro-gun content, commentary on racism in the US, and news articles about politics,” but failed to find anything else.

There was plenty of other publicly available information about Rhodes and the Oath Keepers at the time that should have easily raised alarm.

In 2014, Oath Keepers traveled to Ferguson, Missouri with assault rifles claiming they were providing security for businesses in the area after the grand jury decision not to indict the white police officer who killed Michael Brown. The St. Louis County Police Department had to demand that the Oath Keepers stop patrolling the city, explaining in a statement that members were walking on rooftops of businesses holding semi-automatic rifles, breaking the county’s ordinance regulating security officers and guards. The police reportedly threatened arrest, and the Oath Keepers began protesting the authorities.

On the one-year anniversary of Michael Brown’s shooting, Oath Keepers again arrived in Ferguson with assault rifles and flak jackets, apparently intending to “protect” businesses and right-wing journalists, including an employee from InfoWars. St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar called their presence “both unnecessary and inflammatory.” This was also covered extensively by national media.

The group has also compared Hillary Clinton to Hitler on its website, and on May 5, 2015, Rhodes was recorded saying that then-Sen. John McCain should be tried for treason, convicted and “hung by the neck until dead.” A long list of former Oath Keepers allegedly cut ties with the group by 2017, citing concerns with Rhodes’s leadership.

Rhodes’s conduct outside of the Oath Keepers had also repeatedly come into question. In October 2015, the Montana Supreme Court’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel recommended that Rhodes be disbarred for violating his attorney oath following a number of ethics and conduct complaints against him, joining Arizona, which admonished Rhodes in 2012 for practicing without a license.

While the nearly all-white Oath Keepers themselves are purportedly not a white nationalist organization, and Rhodes may have “denounced” white nationalist ideals, Oath Keepers have repeatedly worked alongside white supremacist and white nationalist groups. In 2016, as neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups such as the National Socialist Movement, factions of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Freedom Party deployed members at polling sites, the Oath Keepers advised its members to do the same undercover. The Washington Post reported in 2017 that white supremacists in the alt-right scene “seem to have a lot in common with the Oath Keepers,” but that the Oath Keepers were not as racist or radical as certain far-right white nationalists would “prefer.” The Oath Keepers have repeatedly been highlighted in national articles as part of the landscape of white supremacist militias, and are often tied to their public ally the Proud Boys, a group that has been categorized as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Proud Boys similarly are allied with the American Guard, a white nationalist group according to SPLC.

Rhodes is now best known for his role in organizing significant turnout of insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, just a few months after he was in contact with the Secret Service. Rhodes and other Oath Keepers planned to participate in violence at the Capitol—against Secret Service protectees, no less—and he gave followers instructions like “stay fully armed” and “get ready to fight” leading up to the attack.

In November 2022, Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy by a jury for his role in the attempt to keep Donald Trump in power, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison in May—the longest of any convicted January 6th defendant so far. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found that Rhodes’s role in January 6th amounted to terrorism and said that he presents “an ongoing threat and peril to this country.”

[kp777]

Landmark lawsuit alleges Montana’s government knowingly contributes to climate change by approving policies and projects that promote a fossil-fuel based energy economy, violating the young plaintiffs’ constitutional right to ‘a clean and healthful environment.’

[berniesrevolution]

IN THESE TIMES

In mid-January, Montana state Senator Keith Regier floated the idea of a bill that would call on federal lawmakers to investigate alternatives to the tribal reservation system, created by federal legislation in 1851 in an effort to silo Native American people, remove them from their traditional way of life and create space for white settlers. Regier claimed he was motivated by genuine concern for the ​“lives and well-being” of Native Americans and all Montanans, asserting the system was built on race and that reservations are not ​“in the best interests of either the Indians inside our borders or for our common Montana citizen.” But Native lawmakers and tribal advocates saw it as something different: the latest, and perhaps most blatant, but far from only attempt to undermine tribal sovereignty.

“They knew exactly what they were doing,” said Travis McAdam, who directs pro-democracy efforts at the Montana Human Rights Network. The text of Regier’s draft resolution refers to substance abuse, domestic violence, poverty and dependence on welfare systems. ​“It was really slandering them with these gross, racist stereotypes that have existed for a long time,” McAdam said. ​“The draft was an offensive piece of legislation.”

After swift pushback from the Montana American Indian Caucus and activists, political will for the legislation dissipated, and Rieger announced he would not formally introduce a bill.

Still, an even more serious threat to tribes across the entire country looms large. A decision on the Supreme Court case Brackeen v. Haaland—a direct assault on the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and by extension, the very right of tribes to be classified as sovereign nations — is expected later this month.

Enacted in 1978, ICWA was part of the federal government’s efforts to rectify the incomprehensible harm it caused to Native families through the forcible removal of Native children from their communities into boarding schools or non-Native foster and adoptive homes. Between 1819 and 1969, hundreds of thousands of children were taken from their families and homes.

ICWA establishes minimum standards for a Native child to be removed from their home and empowers tribes to be more involved in adoption and custody procedures for kids enrolled or eligible to enroll in tribal nations. The law gives tribal courts exclusive jurisdiction over members who live on tribal land, in the hopes of keeping families together, and creates a process whereby they’re noticed and involved in cases outside of these boundaries.

For years, people and organizations hostile to ICWA have tried to erode the legislation through the court system. Should ICWA fall, it’s not only adoption and foster cases that will be gravely impacted; the basic foundations of tribal sovereignty could be unwound. Observers in Indian Country have long believed that attacks on the legislation have broader aims in mind than the wellbeing of children, and many anti-ICWA proponents are also perceived as gunning for access to natural resources, mineral rights and more.

(Continue Reading)

[archiveofkloss]

karlie kloss for the washington post: “Abortion should be on Missouri’s ballot this fall”

Democrats and Republicans may not agree on much these days, but since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many of us have found common ground: protecting reproductive freedom. The truth is, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a woman’s right to choose.

Abortion has been on the ballot in some form in seven states since the Supreme Court struck down Roe. In all of them — from blue Vermont and California to deep-red Montana and Ohio — voters have said loud and clear: Bans off women’s bodies. Many other states will hopefully have their say on abortion rights in November. One is Missouri, my home state

Growing up in St. Louis with three sisters and a dad who is a doctor, I didn’t see reproductive health as a political issue. It was real life. And policymakers were making women’s lives harder by limiting access to care. Even under Roe, it became virtually impossible to get an abortion in Missouri because of strategically placed hurdles to accessing care and requirements so narrow that eventually only one abortion clinic remained open in the entire state. Then the Trump administration appointed justices to the Supreme Court who ultimately overturned Roe. Minutes later, Missouri became the first state to ban abortion without exceptions for rape or incest — only for a few medical emergencies such as “imminent death.”

If their first tactic for chipping away at our rights was at clinics, their next target is the ballot box. Missouri now has the chance to protect it. Missourians for Constitutional Freedom is working to get an abortion amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot. But anti-choice Republicans are trying to make it harder for that to happen by weakening direct democracy.

First, Missouri’s secretary of state tried to add overtly partisan and misleading language to the ballot initiative to restore abortion rights. Thankfully, the Missouri Supreme Court stopped him. Now state Senate Republicans are overriding 200 years of precedent by significantly raising the threshold for constitutional amendments to pass. Under their new scheme, a simple majority of voters statewide would no longer be enough to pass an amendment. Instead, an amendment would need to win a majority in five of the state’s eight congressional districts (five of which are deeply conservative).

This is all part of a nationwide playbook to rip away our freedoms. In Kansas, antiabortion politicians tried to confuse voters with convoluted language on an abortion referendum. In Ohio, they tried to make it harder for a majority of voters to change the state’s constitution to protect abortion rights. Their efforts failed spectacularly, but that isn’t stopping lawmakers in Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida and Montana from trying similar tactics. Activists in those states are trying to give voters a voice on abortion this November, and politicians are trying to silence them.

For most people, reproductive health care isn’t about politics — it’s deeply personal. It’s fundamentally about freedom, dignity and bodily autonomy. That’s why I’ve been engaged on this issue since I was a teenager. In 2012, I trained as a clinic escort to protect patients arriving for appointments at Planned Parenthood in St. Louis. Years later, I became involved with the incredible team at CHOICES in Carbondale, Ill. — across the state line from Missouri — and dozens of other clinics. When Roe fell, these clinics were overwhelmed. To help fill the gap, I launched an organization called Gateway Coalition to direct funding to various Midwest groups to provide accessible abortion care. And I continue to learn from organizations such as the Abortion Bridge Collaborative Fund advisory council and Abortion Care Network.

Karlie Kloss gathers signatures for the Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment with a volunteer from Abortion Action Missouri in St. Louis in March.

Through clinic visits and meetings with providers, center operators, and movement leaders across the country, I’ve learned how desperately patients need abortion care and what clinics go through to provide it. Clinics are being closed down, doctors are being blocked from providing care, and women are being forced to carry pregnancies against their will.

The Missouri I know supports freedom. Missourians know that decisions around pregnancy — including abortion, birth control, IVF and miscarriage care — are personal and private, and should be left up to patients and their families. As a mother, sister, daughter, friend and someone who cares deeply about the dignity of others, I’m working toward a future where everyone has the freedom to access abortion affordably and on a timeline that meets their needs. The Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment is an important step toward that future. We have to pass it, and then we have to build on it. I’m committed to staying in this fight until abortion is safely and affordably available for every patient nationwide.

If you agree that patients, not politicians, should make their own health-care decisions — or simply that a small minority should not prevent a majority from winning at the ballot box — make your voice heard this election cycle.

If you’re in Missouri, that means signing the petition for the Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment by May 5, volunteering to gather signatures from others and then voting for the ballot initiative in the general election. Across the country, that means showing up at the polls when politicians try to twist the rules to serve their anti-choice agenda. And, this November, it means voting for candidates for president and Congress who will codify the protections of Roe v. Wade into federal law — and rejecting those promising to further restrict our reproductive rights.

Our fundamental freedoms are on the line — the right to abortion, and now, the right to have our voices heard at the ballot box.

[rambleonamazon]

Montana’s Republicans have just pass SB458 out of committee.

It’s the same kind of anti-trans hatred you’re seeing out of every conservative state right now: it removes all hate crime and discrimination protections from transgender people, bans trans people from sports, and forbids trans people from updating their documentation in Montana.

But importantly: it also updates the language of Montana’s anti-gay-marriage law. This law is currently unenforceable ever since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. The only reason to update it—to call it out specifically in the 61-page bill—is if they plan to make in enforceable again.

Once again, Republicans are loudly announcing that the second they’re done outlawing trans people, they will eagerly take on the rest of the queer community. So even if you don’t care about trans people, if you care about any human rights, need to be standing up with us and pushing back now, because pushing back without us will be that much harder.

[krill-joy]

Beautiful news!

A Montana court has blocked three anti-abortion laws from taking effect, which would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, prohibited doctors from prescribing medication abortion through telehealth, required 24-hour waiting periods to have medication abortions, and required ultrasounds to be performed prior to an abortion. These laws were originally passed and signed into law by Montana’s Republican-majority legislature in 2021 but were temporarily blocked by a court injunction in October of that year. District Court Judge Kurt Krueger wrote on Thursday that the laws in question imposed a significant burden on abortion access while also infringing on women’s state Constitutional right to access abortion prior to fetal viability, as established by a Montana Supreme Court ruling from 1999. Thursday’s ruling further specifies that “fetal viability” isn’t an arbitrary gestational marker, but something that should be determined by medical professionals rather than the state. “Courts are particularly wary of ideological or sectarian legislation presented as healthcare interests,” the ruling says.