A constitutional initiative passed by voters last fall has been challenged.
Supporters say it allows access to abortion, opponents say it allows abortion up to the moment of birth.
But for now, the focus is on the constitutionality of the amendment, after the Montana Family Foundation filed a complaint this week in Yellowstone County District Court.
"CI-128, the way it was submitted to voters in Montana, violated our very own Constitution and it should be declared null and void," said Derek Oestreicher, Montana Family Foundation chief general counsel.
Watch the challenge to CI-128 story here:
Voters approved CI-128 58% to 42% in November.
“It adds a right to make a decision about pregnancy to the state constitution,” said Oestreicher. “CI-128 was pitched to voters as we're just codifying existing law. The reality is they were expanding abortion in Montana up to the moment of birth.”
"We know anti-abortion extremists are desperate to outright ignore the will of Montanans to enforce their unpopular, dangerous political agenda," said Dr. Samuel Dickman, Planned Parenthood of Monana chief medical officer. "We know that they will try anything to ban abortion."
Dickman, who was named in the complaint as a respondent, along with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, the ACLU of Montana, and Forward Montana, issued a statement on behalf of all three organizations.
Oestreicher says what voters saw in the ballot language was different than the complete text of the amendment to the Montana.
“And frankly, we think if voters had been presented with this confusingly worded and vague and ambiguous language, they would have voted it down,” Oestreicher said.
Oestreicher says there is precedent for his analysis.
In the 1970s, two constitutional initiatives had the complete texts on the ballots.
“What all voters saw on the ballot — it was a short summary statement describing what CI-128 supposedly does,” said Oestreicher. “The problem is that's just an interpretation of the actual language.”
The Constitution requires the complete text of the proposed amendment during signature gathering to qualify for the budget.
Article 14, Section 9 (3) of the Montana Constitution states, “the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the qualified electors for approval or rejection.”
“We're discussing a proposed amendment to our Constitution, it requires the full text,” Oestreicher said.
“Montana voters agreed and made an informed decision when they decisively enshrined the right to abortion in the State Constitution,” Dickman said.“The highest court in Montana has already affirmed CI-128.”
Meanwhile, former University of Montana constitutional law professor Rob Natelson, who is with the Independence Institute in Denver, wrote about CI-128 last September before the elections.
The Montana Family Foundation asked for the review, but Natelson emphasizes he has no ties to that organization nor has he received compensation for his analysis.
“Since 1999, the Montana Supreme Court has imposed a separate vote requirement on proposed constitutional initiatives,” Natelson said. “It is clear that CI-128 does not comply with a separate vote rule.”
“This is about upholding the integrity of our constitution,” Oestreicher said. “It's about the rule of law. “It's not an abortion case. This is an election law case. This is a constitution case.”
