BOZEMAN — For the first time all season, Montana State allowed a visiting opponent to score in the first quarter of a game played inside Bobcat Stadium.

It made little difference, as the Bobcats used a flurry of touchdowns to close out the first half en route to a 52-19 win over Idaho on Saturday in the quarterfinal round of the FCS playoffs. Montana State will play a semifinal game next Saturday for the fourth time in six years.

The top-ranked and undefeated Bobcats started the game against the Vandals in typical fashion of this historic season — marching down the field on the opening series to score a touchdown on a 3-yard pass from quarterback Tommy Mellott to tight end Rylan Schlepp.

The game seemed to turn late in the first quarter, though. Idaho quarterback Jack Layne, who missed the Vandals’ regular-season loss at Montana State, aired out a pass to a wide-open Jordan Dwyer.

Dwyer, who was running free behind the MSU secondary, caught the perfectly placed pass and ran in for a 55-yard touchdown. Idaho and Montana State were tied 7-7 going to the second quarter.

The teams traded field goals in the second — Myles Sansted converted from 46 yards for Montana State and Cameron Pope made a 32-yarder for Idaho — but the wheels came off for the Vandals in the waning minutes of the half.

Following Pope’s field goal, Idaho coach Jason Eck opted to go for a surprise onside kick. The ball didn’t travel the required 10 yards, giving the Bobcats the ball at the Idaho 38-yard line. Montana State capitalized, with Mellott scoring this time on the ground from 8 yards out to give the Bobcats a 17-10 led with 3:47 to play in the first half.

On Idaho’s ensuing possession, Mark Hamper fumbled on a wide receiver screen after running into the back of one of his own blockers. MSU defensive end Brody Grebe recovered the fumble, and the Bobcats’ offense came back on the field.

Moments later, running back Adam Jones, who started in the absence of Scottre Humphrey, was in the end zone, and the Bobcats were suddenly up 24-10.

But the first-half disaster wasn’t over for the Vandals. Idaho was forced to punt, and — after a 15-yard return by Taco Dowler — Mellott showed why he’s a finalist for the Walter Payton Award.

The senior from Butte dropped back to pass but didn’t find an open receiver. With pressure closing in, Mellott scrambled through an opening in the line, juked an Idaho defender and sprinted down the left sideline. He was forced out 63 yards later, and the Bobcats were in business inside the Idaho 5-yard line with less than 30 seconds left in the half.

Jones eventually punched in another touchdown on third-and-goal, and Montana State took a 31-10 lead into halftime, having scored 21 unanswered points in less than four minutes of game action.

The second half didn’t start much better for Idaho. Layne threw an interception to Jon Johnson on the Vandals’ first offensive play, and five minutes later Jones scored this third touchdown, this one from 9 yards out. Mellott added a 5-yard TD pass to Dowler later in the third, and Montana State took a 45-10 lead to the fourth quarter.

Less than a minute into the fourth, Jones added another touchdown. After taking a Mellott pass 56 yards to the 2-yard line, Jones scored his fourth TD of the night on the next play.

Layne and Dwyer connected for another Idaho touchdown in the fourth quarter, and Pope added a 43-yard field goal.

Montana State improved to 14-0 for the first time in program history, and the 14-game win streak is also the best in program history. Fourth-year head coach Brent Vigen is now 30-1 during his career at Bobcat Stadium and has guided Montana State to the semifinal round of the postseason in three of his four years.

Idaho, which was the eighth seed for this year’s playoffs and entered Saturday’s game with a six-game winning streak, finishes the season at 10-4.

Turning point: Hamper’s fumble completely changed the complexion of the game. It was just a one-score game when Idaho started the series with an opportunity to close out the half. Instead of driving the field and getting points, the turnover gave the Bobcats a short field and started the avalanche that finished out the first half.

Stat of the game: Montana State dominated in all facets, and perhaps nothing illustrates that more than the teams’ performances on third down. The Bobcats converted on 11 of 15 third-down plays, while Idaho was only 2 of 10, with its first successful third-down conversion coming in the fourth quarter against Montana State’s second-string defense.

Bobcat game balls: RB Adam Jones (Offense). With Humphrey sidelined, Jones, the Big Sky Conference freshman of the year, showed he was more than capable. He handled the bulk of the carries, finishing with 23 totes for 95 yards and four touchdowns. He also had three catches for 66 yards. Jones, a graduate of Missoula Sentinel High School, now has 1,068 rushing yards on the season.

DE Brody Grebe (Defense). Grebe started the game blowing up a fourth-down run on Idaho’s first possession to keep the Vandals off the scoreboard in the early going. And his fumble recovery in the second quarter was one of the pivotal plays of the game. The official stats gave Grebe only one tackle, but his imprint was all over the game.

What’s next: Montana State will have its final home game of the season at 1:30 p.m. on Saturday, Dec. 21, against either UC Davis or South Dakota in the semifinal round. The Coyotes host the Aggies at 1 p.m. on Saturday in a quarterfinal game.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a lawsuit challenging the state’s law banning public funds from covering gender-affirming health care.

The new law took effect in July, banning Idaho Medicaid and public funds from covering gender-affirming medication and surgeries.

Transgender and nonbinary Idahoans on Medicaid who sued in 2022 — alleging Idaho Medicaid has an unwritten policy of denying or delaying gender-affirming care coverage — this year amended their lawsuit to seek to block the new law. 

Labrador asked the Supreme Court to review if refusing coverage for sex-reassignment surgeries violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. 

Labrador filed his request for U.S. Supreme Court review, formally called a petition for writ of certiorari, on Dec. 5. That was a day after the nation’s highest court heard oral arguments in a case challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, called United States v. Skrmetti.

Petitions for writ of certiorari are a process to appeal lower court decisions directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The court hardly approves such requests; each term, the court hears oral arguments in about 80 among the 7,000-8,000 petitions filed, SCOTUSblog reports. Approval requires votes by four of the nine justices.

What Labrador’s cert petition requests

Labrador’s request asked the court to hold his petition until the Tennessee case is decided since “this question will likely be answered by Skrmetti.”

The request then asks the court to remand Idaho’s case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in September denying Idaho officials “qualified immunity.” 

The suit from Tennessee already before the Supreme Court deals with “substantively identical issues” to Idaho’s, Idaho Office of the Attorney General spokesperson Dan Estes told the Idaho Capital Sun in a statement. 

“Multiple circuit courts have ruled over the last two years that states can regulate sex reassignment treatments without violating the Constitution,” Estes said in a statement. “We hope the Supreme Court will agree and issue a ruling confirming the constitutionality of Idaho’s alleged policy of not covering sex reassignment surgeries under Medicaid.”

In July, federal judge Raymond E. Patricco, chief magistrate judge in the District of Idaho, issued a temporary restraining order that had blocked Idaho’s new law only for the seven suing patients in the lawsuit, but the order expired. 

On Nov. 22, Patricco heard oral arguments on whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a broader, longer-lasting legal block against the law. He has not yet issued his ruling.

What Idaho’s law does

The bill creating the new law — House Bill 668 — was approved by all but one Idaho Republican state legislator this spring before Gov. Brad Little signed it into law.

Bill sponsors argued the bill ensures that taxpayer dollars are not inappropriately used. Opponents said major medical groups say gender-affirming care is medically necessary and safe, and warned that the law could lead to a lawsuit.

According to the law, public funds cannot cover hormone therapy, puberty blockers or surgical procedures for the purpose “to affirm the individual’s perception” of their sex. But the law outlines other coverage of the procedures still legally allowed. 

In response to the new law, Health West, the go-to gender-affirming care clinic in eastern Idaho, stopped providing gender-affirming care. The move appeared to be driven by fears of losing funding, the Idaho Capital Sun reported.

How much does gender-affirming care cost Idaho taxpayers? Health agency hasn’t said.

It isn’t clear how many Idaho Medicaid patients receive gender-affirming care. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has declined to answer questions about gender care coverage and costs, citing the litigation — but has said the agency hasn’t covered “any surgeries for gender dysphoria for adults or youth.”

Around 350,000 Idahoans are on Medicaid, which largely covers low-income and disabled people. Gender nonconforming people are at higher risk for being in a lower socio-economic status, a study in February found.

Less than 1% of Idaho’s population is transgender — or about 7,000 Idaho adults and 1,000 Idahoans age 13 and up, according to estimates from the University of California-Los Angeles.

Cert petition Labrador MH v. Adams 12-5-24

As the president of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, I’m compelled to address a pressing issue that impacts the health and safety of mothers in our state: the urgent need for a health exception to Idaho’s abortion bans. 

Idaho law bans abortion with limited medical exceptions and places significant constraints on routine obstetric care. The law doesn’t consider the risks associated with pregnancy. While many pregnancies are uncomplicated, not all are routine. Conditions such as premature rupture of membranes, severe preeclampsia and placental abruption can unexpectedly endanger the life of the mother and baby. In these cases, timely medical intervention is critical. Left untreated these conditions lead to lifelong health problems for the mother, including the inability to have children. 

Idaho’s maternal mortality rate has been rising for years, more than doubling rates seen in other states and developed countries. According to the latest data, Idaho’s rate stands at 40.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, a statistic that highlights the urgent need for better maternal healthcare policies. 

Four women challenge Idaho’s abortion ban in court

The landscape of obstetric services in Idaho has shifted dramatically, particularly in rural communities. Many Idaho counties have lost access to OB/GYN services, leaving vast areas without surgical care for emergencies. The consequences are severe: families face long journeys to receive care that may come too late. We need policies that prioritize the health and safety of mothers, rather than restricting options.

As a family physician that practices obstetrics, I’ve trained for years and delivered babies to families across the state. In a medical emergency, I rely on my medical training, experience and patient autonomy.  Politicians have no place in a room where a health care team is working to keep pregnancy safe for the mother. 

To address this issue, the organization I lead, the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, joined patients and other doctors as plaintiffs in a legal challenge to Idaho’s abortion bans, Adkins v. State of Idaho, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights. A two-week trial concluded last month, and a ruling is expected sometime next year. Through the case, we are asking for clear and workable medical exceptions that would allow physicians to use their best medical judgment and intervene to treat our patients as we were trained. We want medical exceptions that ensure the health and safety of pregnant patients always comes first. 

The need for a health exception in Idaho is a matter of urgency that impacts maternal health and safety. Enacting changes that prioritize the well-being of mothers fosters a health care environment that respects individual rights and prioritizes the health of Idaho families. Let us work together to create a future where every pregnant mother has access to the safe care she deserves.