Letters to the editor Oct. 14

Supports Dave Fern

I strongly support Dave Fern for state senator in Senate district 2. Dave has ably served the Whitefish area as state representative for eight years, working hard to provide tax relief for homeowners and promoting affordable living spaces for all citizens.  He has always been approachable and helpful, and clearly has the best interests of his constituents in mind.

Mr. Fern is opposed in this election by Doug Adams, and I would be both discouraged and appalled should Mr. Adams succeed. I fear that as a representative of the Whitefish area he would do his best to weaken or destroy two of our most cherished institutions — the Whitefish library and the public schools.

During his tenure as member and chairman of the county library board, he has helped weaken the policy choices of the professional library staff, and showed his willingness to allow a group of radical Christian conservatives to impose their choices to limit book availability.  

Mr. Adams speaks of “giving parents school choice.” I fear that as a legislator he would promote the extension of the school voucher program which removes taxpayer money from public schools and gives it to private and religious schools that do not carry the responsibilities required of public schools.

At a time when affordable housing is a major issue in Whitefish and the rest of the valley, Mr. Adams has shown no sign of support. While serving on the Whitefish City Council he actively opposed efforts at that time to make housing more available to middle-class citizens, saying that “owning a house is a privilege.” The implication was that this privilege is only granted if you have plenty of money.

I definitely support Dave Fern for state senator.

— Samuel Neff, Whitefish

Abortion access already secured

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, R-Kalispell