Letters to the editor Oct. 22

Tester an effective senator

It seems phenomenal that a majority of Montanans would even consider replacing Sen. Jon Tester with an unproven, inexperienced neophyte who was handpicked by the national GOP because he was more presentable than Matt Rosendale.  

Seniority is meaningless in the House of Representatives, but it is everything in the Senate, along with one’s reputation and the ability to work with other senators, especially ones across the aisle. 

Tester has each of those attributes in spades. Politico recently ranked the top 10 most effective senators in each party. Tester was ranked No. 2 among Democrats, and Sen. Steve Daines didn’t even make the Republican list. Only 20 senators have more seniority than Tester.  

Put Tim Sheehy in office and there will be 99 senators who outrank him. Good intentions alone will not bring any benefit to Montana. Tester is hands down Montana’s biggest asset in the Senate. Don’t lose him.

— John M. Drath, Bigfork

CI-128’s woke language

Don’t be fooled. Know the facts about CI-128 before you vote.

Those who vote yes on this measure thinking it impacts only abortion may be hoodwinked into voting for policies they actually oppose. Once these are part of the constitution they are much more difficult to change and could have huge ramifications for Montana.   

The proponents of CI-128 have raised nearly $15 million. Some of the largest contributors are from New York, California and Washington D.C. Ask yourself why these out-of-staters are so interested in changing Montana’s constitution. 

Interestingly, CI-128 is being presented by its proponents as necessary to protect women’s reproductive rights in Montana, but nowhere does it mention women. Instead it uses generic language like “pregnant patient” or “person” to abort “their” child. The implications of that unusual woke language does not fit at all with the rest of the Montana Constitution which specifically distinguishes between men and women. Is it possible that this is intentional language that will be used to open the door for  future litigation and claim constitutional status for the gender fluidity program?

Some other vague language in this initiative puts no limits on who makes or carries out the decisions about “one’s own pregnancy.” It could include children of any age, in or out of parental custody and mentally incompetent people under legal guardianship. How is that in anyone’s best interest? Unless you are an unscrupulous “health care provider,” licensed or not, that makes your living performing abortions. Because you see, CI-128 also contains no requirement that the “treating health care professional” be competent or even licensed. This wording exposes children to abusive practices by people who don’t care about them.

CI-128 also does not correctly define the “viability” of a fetus. It is widely understood and accepted in medicine that a child born after 24 weeks gestation is likely to survive with proper care in a neonatal intensive care unit. Under CI-128, a child would have to be able to survive outside of the uterus without medical intervention to be considered viable. What gestational age is that — 36 or 37 weeks? What a horrific thought.

The slippery language of CI-128  leaves the door open for many unexpected consequences that most Montana voters would not want. If passed it will likely turn Montana into a place we don’t even recognize.

Don’t be fooled. Vote no on CI-128.

— Tracy Wise, Kalispell

A solution requires more than one action

This theory of making homeless people work to provide shelter and basic amenities sounds great, however, before it rolls off the tongue, a person needs to think about the actuality.  

How will these people be available to seek employment if they are picking up garbage to earn a bed? Your article didn’t mention anything about mental health help, but it is pretty apparent that many of these people could benefit from that type of service. 

I didn’t see anything about education, which is paramount in building your life and making things better and more functional as well as trying to get hired.  

We must do more than write out a rant to solve this problem. It wouldn’t hurt as a community to step up and try. Imagine someone you care about being in a situation like needing a shelter to just get some much needed rest or to get cleaned up.  

I don’t have all of the answers, but I know that the solution will require more than one action. Are we a community that is complacent to complain, or are we a community that is clear thinking, competent and constructive? You choose.

— Jeremy Phillips, Kalispell