After leaving a message about the heinous language in this bill sponsored by Dr. Jane Gillette of Bozeman, I received a phone call a few minutes ago from the executive director of the state bar association, and the husband of Dr. Gillette, Christopher Gillette. We had a long conversation about the bill particularly the section of the bill that we have been concerned about today. He told me that this section of the bill is DOA, thankfully. He does not know if the bill will be reworked and submitted as something else without this section or not.
He explained to me that the intent of the bill was not to give rapists access to children born to their victims as a result of rape. He cited two recent examples in Montana where the mothers petition to discontinue parental rights to the fathers of their children. He indicated that in these two specific cases, mothers had charged the fathers of their children with rape after the children had been born and after a parental relationship had been legally established. He said the intent was to make sure that children had access to their birth parents for the benefit of the children. We went back and forth about the intent and the actual language in the bill, which in my opinion was poorly written at best and could easily be interpreted as a way to once again dismiss the rights of women especially in instances of rape. He agreed the language could have been better and was written by an associate of his. Jane Gillette had been asked to carry the bill and that’s why her name was on on it.
All that said, I explained to him my concern that these two alleged cases had inspired this type of legislation at all. If in fact the two women in question had not been actually raped and had made the allegations in an effort to wrongfully deny parental rights of the birth fathers, why couldn’t this play out in court? If the birth fathers had been wronged and hadn’t committed rape, could they not hire an attorney and through discovery it would come to light that they weren’t guilty as charged? Why do we need a law that could be used against women to force them into the humiliation of sharing parental rights with their rapist.
Long story short, I will say that it took Mr. Gillette a certain amount of courage to call me personally because I blistered Jane’s ass on her voicemail. I was pissed. He was very concerned that his wife, Dr. Jane Gillette, would be adversely affected by the impression this legislation has left constituents with. I told him that she should be concerned. If she had read the bill and not just slapped her name on it, she might have come away with the same impression we did and maybe she did support it and didn’t like the blowback. Any proposed legislation that even hints at whittling away women’s basic civil rights will be watched closely by the rest of us paying attention in MT.
I’m no fool. There are dozens of photos online of Dr. Gillette posing with Daines, Gianforte, Rosendale etc. If she truly didn’t understand the contents of the bill with her name on it, she better start paying attention because she’s being used by Republican thugs in Montana.
= new reply since forum marked as read