Connect with us

Montana

Montana proposes restricting Medicaid-funded abortions

Published

on

Montana proposes restricting Medicaid-funded abortions


Katheryn Houghton

Montana’s conservative leaders, stymied by the courts from passing legal guidelines that impose vital statewide abortion restrictions, search to tighten the state’s Medicaid guidelines to make it tougher for low-income girls to obtain abortions.

The Montana Division of Public Well being and Human Providers is proposing to outline when an abortion is medically needed, restrict who can carry out such companies, and require preauthorization for many instances.

The push to vary the rules is borne of a perception by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte’s administration that well being suppliers are utilizing present guidelines that permit Medicaid reimbursements to cowl abortions that aren’t medically needed.

Advertisement

“Taxpayers should not foot the invoice for elective abortions,” stated Gianforte spokesperson Brooke Stroyke.

Medical professionals have stated the time period “elective abortions” can misrepresent the advanced causes somebody could search an abortion and constrain well being suppliers from making their greatest scientific judgment. Laurie Sobel, affiliate director of Ladies’s Well being Coverage at KFF, stated that seems to be the intention of the Montana proposal’s give attention to defining medically needed abortions.

“It seems like Montana’s making an attempt to curtail abortion entry underneath Medicaid and take the dialog of ‘medically needed’ away from a doctor and a affected person,” Sobel stated.
Democratic lawmakers and plenty of well being suppliers have stated present state guidelines guarantee suppliers think about and doc why an abortion is required to guard a affected person.

Democratic state Rep. Ed Stafman, who not too long ago chaired the Kids, Households, Well being, and Human Providers Interim Committee, stated the proposed modifications are pointless as a result of the state already complies with federal Medicaid guidelines on abortion.

“It is clear that that is a part of the anti-abortion agenda, Stafman stated.

Advertisement

States are barred from utilizing federal funds to pay for abortions besides in instances of rape, incest, and when a girl’s life is in danger. Nonetheless, states have the choice of utilizing their very own cash to permit reimbursements underneath the joint state-federal Medicaid program in different circumstances.

Montana is considered one of 16 states that permit using state Medicaid funds for abortions deemed medically needed. A research revealed in 2017 within the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology discovered that states with Medicaid protection of medically needed abortions had a decreased threat of extreme maternal morbidity for that inhabitants, 16% on common, in contrast with states with out that protection.

Montana’s proposed modifications are extra restrictive than the principles in most of the different states that permit medically needed Medicaid abortions. No less than 9 states that use state funds to pay for Medicaid abortions don’t require well being suppliers to report the circumstances for an abortion, in keeping with a 2019 U.S. Authorities Accountability Workplace report on state compliance with abortion protection guidelines.

For instance, California’s Medi-Cal program doesn’t require any medical justification for abortions, and requires preauthorization solely when the affected person must be hospitalized.

A lot of the states that allow medically needed Medicaid abortions, together with Montana, are underneath court docket orders to fund the process as they’d different normal well being companies for low-income folks.

Advertisement

Montana’s protection is tethered to a 1995 court docket case that decided the state’s Medicaid program was established to offer “needed medical companies” and the state can’t exclude particular companies. The state’s present eligibility guidelines governing when a Medicaid-funded service is medically needed embrace when a being pregnant would trigger struggling, ache, or a bodily deformity; end in sickness or infirmity; or threaten to trigger or worsen a incapacity.

Underneath the well being division’s new proposal, abortions could be decided to be medically needed solely when a doctor — not one other sort of supplier — certifies a affected person suffers from an sickness, situation, or damage that threatens their life or has a bodily or psychological situation that will be “considerably aggravated” by being pregnant.

Elsewhere, courts have rejected some states’ makes an attempt to create a definition for medically needed abortions other than present Medicaid requirements as constitutional violations of equal safety. The Alaska Supreme Courtroom struck down a 2013 state regulation altering the definition of a medically needed abortion as a result of it handled Medicaid beneficiaries who needed an abortion in a different way than these looking for pregnancy-related procedures like a cesarean part. And New Mexico’s excessive court docket stated in 1999 {that a} state rule limiting Medicaid-funded abortions utilized totally different requirements of medical necessity to women and men.

Montana opponents of the proposed modifications have threatened to sue if the rules are adopted.

The state’s Medicaid program covers greater than 153,900 girls. From 2011 via 2021, this system paid for five,614 abortion procedures, which generally represents practically a 3rd of all abortions within the state, in keeping with state knowledge.

Advertisement

Presently in Montana, docs, doctor assistants, and superior nurse practitioners are allowed to carry out abortions. No less than one Montana clinic that gives abortions to Medicaid beneficiaries is run by a nurse practitioner, All Households Healthcare’s Helen Weems, who’s suing the state for making an attempt to dam nurses from performing abortions.
Medical suppliers make the choice of whether or not an abortion is medically needed and submit a type afterward to the state well being division.

The proposed change would require suppliers to get state approval earlier than performing an abortion, besides in emergencies, and submit supporting paperwork to justify the medical necessity. That preauthorization course of would entail offering state officers particulars of sufferers’ medical historical past, resembling what number of pregnancies an individual has had, the date of their final menstrual cycle, whether or not they smoke, the outcomes of any being pregnant checks, and whether or not they have ever had behavioral well being points or substance use issues.

Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Deliberate Parenthood of Montana, stated suppliers already accumulate that info however don’t ship it to the state. If they’re required to take action, she stated, that may have a chilling impact which will hold folks from looking for assist or cause them to pay for it out-of-pocket, if they’ll.

“Sufferers may really feel like, ‘Oh, and every part that I let you know, it should be now shared with my insurer for the aim of them making a call about whether or not or not I can have an abortion?’” Fuller stated.

In Montana, a affected person looking for an abortion through remedy sometimes will get that via nurse practitioners or doctor assistants as a substitute of going via one of many few physicians that present that care via Medicaid, Fuller stated. She stated Medicaid sufferers would see longer wait occasions if the brand new guidelines are put in place as they wait to see a doctor. And ready for prior authorization would add to the time in limbo.

Advertisement

Telehealth helps present entry amid scattered assets throughout the large, rural state, however Montana’s proposed modifications would require a bodily examination.

“Sufferers may need to make a extra invasive process. They might need to journey. They need to take extra break day from work,” Fuller stated. “There will likely be sufferers who will resolve to not search abortion care as a result of they can’t afford it.”

Of the 1,418 abortions coated by Montana Medicaid in 2020 and 2021, state information present, one was carried out as a result of an individual’s life was at risk. The remainder have been carried out underneath the broader medically needed justification, with paperwork about these instances together with a quick rationalization for why the process was wanted.
In response to the state’s proposed guidelines, the dearth of supporting documentation for the procedures leads “the division to moderately consider that the Medicaid program is paying for abortions that aren’t really medically needed.”

In 2021, state lawmakers handed and Gianforte signed three legal guidelines limiting abortions {that a} court docket quickly blocked. The Montana Supreme Courtroom upheld the injunction arguing that the state structure’s right-to-privacy provision extends to abortion.

Gianforte and the state legal professional normal have referred to as on the Montana Supreme Courtroom to strike down the two-decade-old ruling that tied abortion entry to the proper to privateness. Republican lawmakers even have filed a slew of abortion-related payments within the legislative session, together with one proposal to exclude abortion from the state’s right-to-privacy protections.

Advertisement

KHN (Kaiser Well being Information) is a nationwide newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about well being points. Along with Coverage Evaluation and Polling, KHN is among the three main working packages at KFF (Kaiser Household Basis). KFF is an endowed nonprofit group offering info on well being points to the nation.
Tweets:





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

Montana Supreme Court upholds landmark youth climate ruling

Published

on

Montana Supreme Court upholds landmark youth climate ruling


Montana’s Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision that had sided with 16 young activists who argued that the state violated their right to a clean environment.

The lawsuit was brought by students arguing that a state law banning the consideration of climate when choosing energy policy was unconstitutional.

In a 6-to-1 ruling, the top court found that the plaintiffs, between ages five and 22, had a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment”.

Wednesday’s ruling came after a district court’s decision last year was appealed by the state. Similar climate lawsuits are ongoing across the US but this is first of its kind a from a state supreme court.

Advertisement

The lawsuit targeted a 2011 state law that made it illegal for environmental reviews to consider climate impacts when deciding on new projects, like building new power plants.

It cited a 50-year-old constitutional clause that guaranteed the “state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations”.

The ruling on Wednesday stated that the “plaintiffs showed at trial – without dispute – that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future” .

Rikki Held, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that “this ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change”.

Montana state officials expressed disappointment with the court’s decision.

Advertisement

Governor Greg Gianforte said his office was still assessing the ruling, but predicted the impact would be “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans”.

Western Environmental Law Center, which represented the young plaintiffs, said in a statement that the decision marks “a turning point in Montana’s energy policy”.

It said plaintiffs and their legal team “are committed to ensuring the full implementation of the ruling”.

Similar cases are scheduled to be heard in several other states, including Hawaii, Utah and Alaska, as well as in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Colombia and Uganda.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in landmark youth climate case

Published

on

Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in landmark youth climate case


What’s New

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday affirmed a landmark climate decision that declared the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by allowing oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces an August 2023 ruling by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, who found that Montana’s practices violated its residents’ constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.”

This pivotal case, spearheaded by a group of young plaintiffs aged 6 to 23, represented a milestone for climate advocates seeking judicial intervention to compel governmental action on climate change.

What To Know

On Wednesday in a 6-1 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the August 2023 decision.

Advertisement

The court’s decision strikes down a state policy that prohibited the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in granting permits for fossil fuel development.

The state had previously appealed the ruling by Seeley, and arguments were heard in July, in which the state argued that greenhouse gases released from Montana fossil fuel projects are minuscule on a global scale and reducing them would have no effect on climate change.

Dale Schowengerdt, representing Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and state environmental agencies, argues before the Montana Supreme Court on July 10, 2024, in Helena, Montana, in the youth climate lawsuit Held v. Montana. The Montana Supreme…


Thom Bridge/Independent Record/ AP

Chief Justice Mike McGrath dismissed the state’s argument that Montana’s emissions are insignificant on a global scale, likening the defense to an “everyone else is doing it” excuse.

McGrath wrote, “The right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless if the State abdicates its responsibility to protect it.”

What Are People Saying

Melissa Hornbein, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs said, “With the ruling now in place, the Montana Supreme Court’s decision compels the state to carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits.”

Advertisement

Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority: “Plaintiffs may enforce their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment against the State, which owes them that affirmative duty, without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire. Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”

Republican Governor Greg Gianforte said in a statement that the state was still reviewing the decision, but said it will lead to “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans.

Pushback From State Leadership

The ruling has sparked a backlash from Gianforte, who criticized the court for what he described as judicial overreach. He warned the decision could invite an onslaught of lawsuits, increase energy costs for Montanans and hinder the state’s “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.

“This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy,” he said in a statement. “This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”

Gianforte also convened energy stakeholders earlier this week to discuss boosting production to meet rising demand, emphasizing the need for “unleashing American energy” to maintain grid stability.

Advertisement

The Plaintiffs’ Perspective

For the 16 young plaintiffs, the court’s decision validates their personal struggles with the tangible effects of climate change. In a Wednesday statement, lead plaintiff Rikki Held called the ruling “a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change.”

During the trial, the plaintiffs described how worsening wildfires, droughts and diminishing snowpack have disrupted their lives, polluted the air and depleted vital natural resources. They argued that the state’s failure to address these challenges imperils their future and violates their constitutional rights.

What Happens Next

The ruling has positioned Montana as a flashpoint in the national debate over climate accountability, potentially inspiring similar legal challenges across the United States.

This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Pregnant woman claims Montana Highway Patrol wrongfully arrested her for DUI

Published

on

Pregnant woman claims Montana Highway Patrol wrongfully arrested her for DUI


BOZEMAN — A pregnant woman from Sheridan is claiming she was wrongfully arrested by the Montana Highway Patrol (MHP) for allegedly driving under the influence during a traffic stop near Bozeman.

“I was just pretty shocked. And I constantly told him I’m pregnant, and I haven’t drunk in probably eight months,” says Alyssa Johnson.

Alyssa is a photographer from Sheridan who, at 22 weeks pregnant, was pulled over by an MHP trooper on Dec. 1, 2024 for an alleged traffic violation.

“I have a stutter, and he thought I was slurring so he pretty much said can you step out of the car. Made me do all these kinds of tests,” says Alyssa.

Advertisement

Alyssa explains that she has severe dyslexia, which makes understanding directions, and completing any sort of test, difficult.

“I mean, Alyssa, when she was in school, she used to have extra time to take an exam and she’d have questions read to her,” explains Alyssa’s husband, Tim Johnson.

Alyssa says in addition to her mental handicap, she was in a state of panic during the traffic stop—affecting her ability to give a proper breathalyzer result.

“They were saying that since I couldn’t breathe through the breathalyzer and the testing wasn’t doing good, they arrested me and pretty much took me to the hospital for more blood work,” she says.

A written statement by her therapist confirms Alyssa’s dyslexia diagnosis.

Advertisement

And after the incident, the couple got a third-party blood test—because the one conducted by law enforcement could take up to eight weeks to return.

The blood test, provided by the Johnsons, shows negative for any type of drug.

Alyssa says, “I take a prenatal, an aspirin for my blood pressure, and stuff for my heartburn, like Tums. Just like simple stuff.”

Tim explains that in addition to expecting their second child, they’re currently building a home—making the cost of bail and towing a hard hit on finances.

He says, “We have a budget to stick to and the budget doesn’t include any unexpected costs like this.”

Advertisement

Tim says this is an opportunity for police to receive better training on mental impairments and hopes that charges will be dropped from Alyssa’s record.

“And I understand they have to do their job too. I mean, support police. But this wasn’t right to do,” she says.

The couple says they have filed a formal complaint with MHP.

I reached out to MHP for comment but did not receive a response regarding the incident. We will update this story if we hear back.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending