Letters to the editor Oct. 1
Repressive views
Recently, there was an opinion piece in this paper written by members of NW Montana Pro-Choice (Montana women are not going back, Sept. 26). They presumed to represent Montana women. I am here to report that this is a false representation and to share a message with them.
You do not represent the women of Montana. You state repeatedly that “we will not go back.” You believe you are the heralds of the future and progress. The reality is that you represent a sad, repressive and aging agenda inflicted upon us by our mothers’ and grandmothers’ generations. You are intent upon forcing these out-dated views upon a young, savvy population of women; and worse yet, you have the arrogance to believe you represent us.
We are a new generation of women. And we will not go back. We will not accept your lies about our children only being “a clump of cells,” when every piece of scientific data we have about the early development of a baby starkly opposes such an uneducated delusion. We will not go back to being told sex can be enjoyed in abandon with whomever, whenever, and all the accompanying lies we were told that managed to separate the act of sexual reproduction from the conception of a child. Not as women now face skyrocketing rates of infertility due, in part, to all that “safe” hormonal birth control medication we were put on in our teens. We will not go back to being told abortion is “normal.” Not as women hemorrhage and die after taking the abortion pill. Not as mothers who have undergone an abortion cope with corresponding mental health issues for the rest of their lives or worse commit suicide.
We’ve had enough of your lies about womanhood. You do not represent women. You represent a fading, corrupt generation akin to the plantation holders of the Old South, insisting that your way of life is a right, but only made possible by denying the humanity others.
I, and many Montana women of a more informed, more humane generation will be voting no on CI-128 this fall and voting against every pro-choice candidate you put forward. NW Montana Pro-Choice, you do not represent women. And we will not go back to your repressive, warped view of reality.
— Shannon Allgeier, Whitefish
Tester or Sheehy?
Jon Tester is one of the most effective senators Montana has ever elected. He is not an extreme liberal. He is a down to earth, centrist, Montana Democrat who has produced and supported a remarkable number of successful bipartisan bills.
He was instrumental in negotiating and passing the bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act which provided funding for the first major infrastructure bill in decades and produced more than 800,000 American jobs as well as more than $3 billion to repair Montana airports, roads, bridges, river systems and highways.
Tim Sheehy is a young millionaire who has made several policy statements suggesting how he might vote if elected. He is for border security, energy independence, reducing inflation, and is strongly pro-life and against a woman’s right to choose. It might be pointed out that the U.S. has already been energy independent producing far more energy than we use for the last four years, inflation has come down since Covid more rapidly than in any other country (most recently 2.5%), and Tester is in fact for strong border security, but yes, he is for a woman’s right to choose.
Tim Sheehy was recruited by Sen. Steve Daines and parrots the same political positions on every issue. If we compare Tester’s votes to Daines, we have a fairly accurate idea of how Sheehy would represent Montana.
Tester voted for, sponsored, or helped draft the following bills: Affordable Care Act, Reproductive Freedom for Women Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Chips and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act (supporting clean energy and fighting climate change), Bipartisan Border Security Bill which substantially increased funding for the border, moves asylum appeals from the courts to homeland security agents, eliminates catch and release.
Daines voted against every one of these bills. Both he and Sheehy appear to want no government. In contrast Tester works for a competent, supportive federal government.
We need Tester and more centrist senators willing to create bipartisan solutions rather than putting party politics and personal beliefs above the needs of our state and country.
— John Santa, Kalispell