Montana

Montana strikes down 3 pro-life laws; Where abortion stands in the state

Published

2 years ago

March 14, 2024

Montana strikes down 3 pro-life laws; Where abortion stands in the state

In a February 29 ruling, District Court Judge Kurt Krueger struck down three Montana pro-life laws as “unconstitutional” that had been in limbo since a preliminary injunction in 2021.

Montana Governor Greg Gianforte initially signed the three pro-life bills HB 136, HB 171, and HB 140 into law on April 26, 2021. However, on September 30, 2021, just hours before the laws were set to take effect, Yellowstone County District Judge Michael Mose issued a temporary injunction to halt enforcement of the three laws due to a legal challenge filed by Planned Parenthood.

[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]

Analysis of the laws

Here’s a breakdown of what the three pro-life laws would have accomplished if they would have been allowed to stand:

HB 136

The Montana Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, also known as HB 136, would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which nerves link pain receptors to the baby’s brain and abortion is certain to cause the baby pain. The act reinforced the concept of fetal pain by pointing out that fetal anesthesia is used when operating on unborn children of this age. The only exception to this law would have been in cases of maternal medical emergency where an immediate abortion was necessary to prevent the mother’s death or “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” The act would have allowed abortionists found guilty of violating the law to be charged with a felony as well as allowed the woman, the father of the unborn child, the woman’s parent or guardian (if the woman was a minor), or the woman’s spouse to sue the abortionist for civil remedies, including damages and attorney fees.

HB 171

The Montana Abortion-Inducing Drug Risk Protocol Act, also known as HB 171, would have implemented strict protocols on how chemical abortions had to be handled to ensure the woman’s safety and informed consent. The act included:

● A 24-hour waiting period for chemical abortions — Under the law, women would have had to sign a consent form 24 hours before undergoing a chemical abortion, except in cases where immediate abortion was necessary to prevent death or “the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions.”

● An in-person requirement — The law would have prohibited abortion-inducing drugs from being distributed by the “manufacturer, supplier, medical practitioner, qualified medical practitioner, or any other person” “via courier, delivery, or mail service,” requiring a woman to be seen in-person by a qualified medical practitioner in order to receive abortion-inducing drugs. During the in-person visit, the abortionist would have had to verify pregnancy, determine the woman’s blood type and Rh negativity, and inform the woman she could possibly see the remains of her child during the abortion process as well as document gestational age, intrauterine location of the pregnancy, and whether the mother was treated for Rh negativity. The act also stated the abortionist would have to be qualified to manage complications as well as initiate emergency transfer and follow up with the woman again in person 7-14 days after the abortion to ensure complete termination and assess bleeding.

● A prohibition on abortion-inducing drugs in schools or on school grounds — HB 171 would have explicitly prohibited elementary, secondary, or postsecondary schools from providing abortion drugs on school grounds.

● A detailed description of reporting requirements — The law would have required abortionists to follow strict instructions regarding reporting adverse events and complications women face during an abortion.

● A detailed description of informed consent requirements — Under the Montana Abortion-inducing Drug Risk Protocol Act, a consent form would have had to inform the woman of the following:

○ Probable gestational age

○ Steps of the chemical abortion process

○ Risks of the specific abortion-inducing drug(s) being used

○ Risks of the chemical abortion process

○ Abortion will result in the death of the unborn child

○ Information about Rh incompatibility and how it could impact fertility without treatment

○ Information about the possibility of abortion pill reversal, including that time is of the essence when deciding to attempt abortion pill reversal, where to find abortion pill reversal, and that studies suggest there is no greater risk of birth defects or maternal mortality after successful abortion pill reversal

○ She could potentially see remains of the child during the abortion process

○ She has a choice and cannot be forced into an abortion

○ She can withdraw consent at any time

○ She can sue if she feels coerced or misled prior to obtaining an abortion and how to access state resources for help with litigation

The act would have allowed abortionists found guilty of violating the law to be charged with a felony and fined up to $50,000, imprisoned up to 20 years, or both. It would have also allowed civil suits and professional sanctions to be brought against the abortionist.

HB 140

HB 140 would have required that a woman must be given the opportunity to view an active ultrasound and ultrasound images as well as the opportunity to listen to the fetal heart tone before undergoing an abortion. The only exception to this law would have been if an immediate abortion were necessary to save the mother’s life, prevent serious risk of the mother suffering “substantial and irreversible impairment of a bodily function,” or remove an ectopic pregnancy. Had the law gone into effect, any abortionist found guilty in violation of the law would have faced a civil penalty of $1,000.

The ruling

On Thursday, February 29, almost a year-and-a-half since the initial temporary injunction, Judge Kurt Krueger issued a 19-page ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood and Samuel Dick, M.D. v. State of Montana and placed a permanent injunction against all three pro-life laws to ensure they do not go into effect.

In the decision, Krueger claimed the laws violated Montana’s Constitution by infringing on privacy and were not rooted in medical necessity or science.

In response to the Montana Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, he cited the 1999 Montana Supreme Court decision in the case of Armstrong v. State of Montana, which found pre-viability abortion to be constitutional under the state constitution’s right to privacy. He also claimed there is no medical consensus about fetal pain at 20-24 weeks gestation and that fetal pain alone is not sufficient for intrusions of privacy.

Judge Krueger even went as far to say, “If that were the case, the state might well be justified in banning pregnancy altogether for fear that the mother (or the baby) could experience pain in childbirth.”

Likewise, he found the common sense and informed consent measures in the Montana Abortion-Inducing Drug Risk Protocol Act would place an undue burden on those seeking abortion, stating the law “violates the right to privacy by imposing numerous and severe burdens on patients and providers, which lack a basis in demonstrable medical science and do not apply to any other medical treatment.” For example, Krueger pointed out that “Montana law does not expressly authorize or prohibit telehealth for any other medical provider.”

Furthermore, Krueger claims offering women ultrasounds and listening to the fetal heart tone is not medically necessary or legally necessary for informed consent.

In his conclusion he writes, “The court finds all three laws incompatible with the text of the Montana Constitution and values it recognizes, and therefore deems them void and unenforceable.”

Current state of abortion in Montana

Abortion in Montana currently remains legal up to the vague and outdated viability standard, with the exception of abortion necessary to save the life of the mother or prevent serious risk to the mother’s physical health. Abortion in the state also does not require a waiting period, and due to a ruling from the Montana Supreme Court last year, does not have to be performed by a doctor but rather can be performed by a nurse. However, Montana pregnancy resource centers outnumber abortion clinics 19 to 5 and are ready to help bring real and life-affirming choices to mothers in need.

Tweet This: Pro-life supporters pray for better outcomes in upcoming cases on pro-life laws than that of 3 Montana pro-life laws struck down in February

Upcoming rulings

More Montana pro-life laws are also currently tied up in legal challenges, including:

● HB 7221 — HB 7221 would prohibit D & E, otherwise known as dismemberment, abortion.

● HB 544 — HB 544 would require prior authorization before the state Medicaid program pays for abortions.

● HB 862 — HB 862 would block state funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger.

● HB 391 — HB 391 would require anyone under 18 to get notarized written consent from their parent or legal guardian in order to get an abortion.

In fact, the Montana Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the decade-long challenge to the parental consent law HB 391 on Wednesday, March 6, 2024. Pro-lifers pray for better outcomes for all these cases.

Source link

Related Topics:abortion Featured Montana

Click to comment

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

3 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link

Montana

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

Published

15 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

Published

1 day ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

HELENA — You probably have goals and plans for 2026—the Montana Department of Agriculture does too.

“We’re really focusing on innovative agricultural practices,” Montana Department of Agriculture director Jillien Streit said.

It’s no secret that agriculture—farming and ranching—is not easy. There are long days, planning, monitoring crops and livestock, and other challenges beyond farmers’ and ranchers’ control.

(WATCH: Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026)

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

“We have very low commodity prices across the board,” Streit said. “We still have very high input prices across the board, and we have really high prices when it comes to our equipment, and so, it’s a really tough year.”

But innovation, including new practices, partnerships and technology use, can help navigate some of those challenges.

“We can’t make more time and we can’t make more land, so we need to start putting together innovative practices that help us maximize what our time and land can do,” Streit said.

Practices range from using technology like autonomous tractors and virtual fencing—allowing rangers to contain and move cattle right from their phones—to regenerative farming and ranching.

“It is bringing cattle back into farming operations to be able to work with cover cropping practices to invigorate the soil for new soil health benefits,” Streit said.

The Montana Department of Agriculture is working to help producers learn, share, and collaborate on new ideas to work in their operations.

The department will share stories of practices that work from farms and ranches across the state. Also, within the next year or so, Streit said the department is hoping to roll out technology to help producers collaborate.

“(It’s) providing a communication platform where people can get together and really help each other out by utilizing each other’s assets,” she said.

While not easy, agriculture is still one of Montana’s largest industries, and Streit said innovating and sharing ideas across the state can keep it going long into the future.

Source link