Wendy, a church is no place for a political speech
Open letter to Rep. Wendy Warburton, Republican candidate for the Legislature from District 34 in Havre and Hill and Blaine counties. I enjoyed your speech to the congregation at Fifth Avenue Christian Church as much as the other people who were there awaiting a spiritual message. I'm sorry to say, however, that your message was not spiritual, despite your spirited delivery. After all, you had filed for the House of Representatives once again, just the week before your campaign speech in church. I think you must know as well as I do, a political campaign speech does not belong in church on Sunday morning, delivered as an alleged sermon.
I checked with church members of both political parties, and I assure you both were upset by your antics. I also checked with the Federal Election Code, by which all political campaigns are run. You risked the "tax-exempt status" of this church as well as other churches in the community where you apparently delivered the same campaign speech. I might have ignored your conduct, but now you have a highly qualified Democratic opponent, Dana Sapp Seidel. Your opponent assured me thatshe could not talk politics with me in her ofice, where she is employed in a public service position.
Wendy, your opponent knows more of the law and fair campaign practices already than you do, and she did not serve a term in the Legislature as you did. She does not have other big advantages, as you do, since you attended Liberty University, Jerry Falwell's campus. Wendy, your indiscrete carelessness with law means you do not deserve a second term.
William Thackery, member Hill County Democratic Central Committee
The Corrector received several e-mails last night after the letter to the editor appeared asking us to do a post to “CORRECT” some misleading lies the good professor scribbled in his letter to the editor. First, Representative Warburton did not make a political speech. She in fact was invited by various churches to come and speak as to the “personhood amendment” and to talk about a group of Montana citizens that are gathering signatures for an amendment to be placed on the ballot this November. Pro-Life members of each of the churches visited are involved with gathering these signatures which were also being collected in each respective church on the Sunday’s when Representative Warburton spoke. The following link explaining the personhood amendment was sent to us by a reader and has been reprinted below. http://www.montanaprolifecoalition.org/Downloads/What_is_Personhood.pdf
Judging by the response the Corrector has received from this letter it is apparent that Bill Thackery is again trying to pull the wool over the HDN reader’s eyes. Thackery went on to say that he “checked with church members of both political parties, and I assure you both were upset by your antics.” What the people that e-mailed us were in fact upset with, Mr. Thackery, was the fact that you cornered everyone you could in the church service to try to get people to help you in putting a stop to the signature gathering at church services. Where do you think most Pro-Life folk do congregate? Aren’t the church folk doing what they believe they have been instructed to do by the Bible which is protecting life and the helpless?What is Personhood? Why a Personhood Movement? What will a Personhood Amendment do?• Every human being, from the beginning of their biological development, deserves equal protection under the law. This is the principle of personhood. That human life begins at conception is based on science, not philosophy, political ideology or theology. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade removed all legal protection from the unborn.
• Throughout modern history, advancement of civil rights has in every case been because of emphatically demonstrating the personhood of the victim. During the Roe v Wade hearing, it was admitted that if the personhood of the unborn was established abortion would have no defense.
• Personhood removes the politically charged rhetoric of the debate and replaces it with the commonsense principle that the right to life begins at each human being's biological beginning. It is a concept easy to grasp and embrace, gets to the core of the abortion tragedy and is pivotal to overturning Roe v Wade.
Why is Establishment of Personhood Critical in Montana?• Did you know that in Montana right now there are absolutely no state restrictions on abortion, up to the moment of labor? Did you know that parents in Montana have absolutely no right to know if someone takes their teenaged daughter to get an abortion? Why? Because the courts have stretched the privacy provision of the Montana Constitution beyond all common sense in order to strike down the pro-life laws that the elected legislature of the State of Montana has enacted in the past. Parental notification was even upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, but then struck down by a lower court because of Montana's flawed Constitution which offers no protection for the unborn. The Montana Constitution must be amended to recognize that unborn babies are people, too, and therefore, they have rights and deserve protection. Legal protection based on personhood also applies to the elderly and disabled, and their need for protection is escalating as our culture further devalues human life.
The personhood movement is gaining momentum nationwide. Personhood Montana seeks an amendment to the Montana Constitution stating that personhood begins at conception. It is written in the context of due process in Article II section 17: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” If we get close to 50,000 signatures, you will see the following on the November 2010 ballot:
 FOR amending the Montana Constitution’s due process section to define “person” to include every human being from the beginning of the human being’s biological development.
 AGAINST amending the Montana Constitution’s due process section to define “person” to include every
Thackery went on in his letter to say that Warburton “risked the tax-exempt status” of these churches but what he failed to mention is that he took it upon himself to run all over town like Captain Kangaroo on Prozac in a failed attempt to try and get various members of his Democrat Party to file a complaint about this apparent Pro-Life rallying of church members by a person who happened to be an elected representative. To the local Democrat leader’s credit, they refused to get involved with a guy that obviously doesn’t have all his cornflakes in the box.
William Thackery is positive proof that the policy of tenure for college professors needs to be revisited