I believe that life begins at conception. Life is an inalienable right that must be protected by the government. Virtually every state Supreme Court has found that life is present when there is a heart beat and there are brain waves present. These findings were in relation to when life ended. I think these same courts would have a hard time justifying different conditions for the beginning of life. We know then, that life is present at about 41 days into a pregnancy.

From a purely legal standpoint I would agree that it is unconstitutional to take the live of an unborn child when there is a heart beat and brain waves. From a moral standpoint, my personal belief is that life begins from conception and that abortion at any time is a crime against humanity.

I believe that a woman has a social contract to protect the life she carries when she becomes pregnant -- regardless of how she became pregnant. (The life she carries is not responsible for the circumstances of the beginning of that life). Since I view life from the point of view of the fetus, I make no exception for abortions.

The primary function of government is to protect the rights of individuals. The primary right is the right to life. Both the mother, and the government, have an obligation to protect the life of the unborn. Therefore, as governor, I would fight to protect the right to life of the unborn from the point conception.

Contrary to the contrived position of the Supreme Court, in Roe vs Wade, abortion is not a private decision of a woman. It is not a matter of privacy any more than is taking the life of any person outside her womb. It is a vain and final effort to "correct" the irresponsibility of the woman, and her male partner, in the conduct of her lives. The Montana constitution recognizes that all persons must recognize responsibility in relation to their rights (Article II, Section 3). Abortion is nothing more than a clear denial of responsibility.

I would be compelled to sign any legislation that enforces these positions and veto any legislation that is contrary to it. My conscience would not allow any other course of action.

Euthanasia is another matter. Everyone has the right to control their own life – including deciding when to end it. Obviously, each persons attitude depends on their religious belief. Outlawing assisted suicide, therefore, compromises the separation of church and state. If you value freedom of worship, you must honor your neighbor's choice in this matter. The choice to leave this world must always be the choice of the individual (or his designee) never the choice of the doctor or government. The doctor's only choice is whether or not he or she will assist. Because a patient cannot make the choice of assisted suicide today, some doctors, in the name of compassion, are making that choice for the terminally ill. This course of action is usually taken without consulting the family (to avoid possible legal action). Legalized assisted suicide puts the decision back in the hands of the person affected (and/or their loved ones).

Oftentimes, teenagers commit suicide because no one takes them seriously. When they talk about depression and death, they tell them that these feelings will pass or admonish them for considering suicide.

In an assisted suicide clinic, such comments would be taken seriously. The teenager would be steered towards counseling that he or she might not otherwise have gotten. If teenagers had a place to go where they would be taken seriously, their suicide rate might actually go down. Few physicians would risk their reputation by assisting teenage suicide of the depressed teenager. The result would most likely be a decrease in teenage suicides.