After reading Travis McAdams' attack on Representative Rick Jore and his Constitutional Party proposal to amend the Montana Constitution to include the "unborn" in the definition of "person," I felt that a clarifying or more "middle-of-the-road" analysis of the issue was needed.

Rep. Jore wants to let the Montana voters (read "people") have a chance to redefine the word "person" after having seen what the judges have created for us over the years. He means to include everything definable as a "human being" with the word "person" so that all humans will be afforded "human rights." What could be wrong with that? These days we seem on the verge of "affording" legal rights to spotted owls, grizzly bears, trees and pets. Surely Mr. McAdam and his "Human Rights" Network shouldn't object to the purpose of Rep. Jore's proposal! But, Mr. McAdam, in his comments, seemed more interested in attacking Rep. Jore's religious views rather than the effect of Jore's proposal. It would seem that the Human Rights Network has a vested interest in the arbitrary definition of "person." given it by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and mimicked by the Montana Supreme Court in later years, using "privacy" as an excuse for excluding all unborn humans from legal protection.

Let me say first, in reliance on the education I received from the Department of Natural Sciences at UM some years ago, preparatory to my degree in zoology, that the fertilized human egg or zygote contains all the same genetic material that I do as an adult. It depends on its mother for food until birth, but so do small children for some years thereafter. Therefore, the unborn "human being" should have at least the dignity we now extend to wild animals and pets. Second, it's the people who make Constitutions, not courts, so why should we refuse to let the people modify theirs, if they choose to do so? Objecting to Rep. Jore's religious views shouldn't change the facts, should it? After all, I don't believe it would be "arbitrary" for the people to base a legal definition on scientific facts, do you?

Mr. McAdams expressions of horror and his personal attack on Rep. Jore and the Constitutional Party are clearly "beside the point" and shouldn't confuse the issue. That issue is, who is to be afforded "human rights" in our society. Should that be left to the courts or should the people decide? Let me call attention to a closely related problem. The other night I watched Channel 11 replay a program on "health care" which took place at the Great Northern Hotel recently. Former Gov. Lamm of Colorado was speaking, and raised the issue that the "elderly" were the biggest "cost problem" in health care. He suggested that it was probable that "we" were going to have to start denying them some of the benefits of the system, or it was going to go "broke." I pricked up my ears because next week, I reach the age of 76 and this might affect me!

Let's face it "we" elderly, particularly those of us with some form of Alzheimer's disease, are often regarded by so-called "health care" professionals as "de-personalized". Based on the remarks of Gov. Lamm, it appears possible that some politicians might get the idea that all you have to do to solve the health care "crisis" is to declare "persons" beyond a certain age to be no longer "persons" and if so, fact of re-election will follow. It seemed easy for the courts to reach this conclusion about the unborn. After all their rights interfered with the perceived right of privacy of mothers. It could be easier with "we" elderly, since the right involved would be the freedom from national bankruptcy, and clearly place a burden on the "the public welfare."

So there you have it, a more moderate view than that expressed by Mr. McAdam and his Human Rights Network. I say this with full knowledge that my views may suffer the same fate as those of most of us "middle of the roaders." That fate was described by a Texas lawyer friend of mine, some years ago. He and I had been discussing the political predicament in which "middle of the roaders" usually find themselves. He said, "Well, in Texas, we paint yellow stripes down the middle of the road to provide a place for cowards and smashed Armadillos." Nuff said?

Ward Shanahan, a Helena lawyer, has long been active in the Republican Party.