Montana
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.
Montana
Planning For Life After Coal Cost a Montana County Commissioner His Seat – Inside Climate News
Robert Pancratz couldn’t believe it.
The Musselshell County commissioner had been defeated in the Republican primary for his seat by a two-to-one margin earlier this month. Mark Olson, who lives in Musselshell and serves as the undersheriff in Golden Valley County, won by 26 percentage points.
“That just blew me away,” Pancratz said. “All of my campaign, I had not a hint that there was that much opposition.”
At stake, from Pancratz’s perspective, is the fiscal future of his community, which includes Roundup, Montana, home to Montana’s only longwall coal mine. The mine, owned and operated by Signal Peak Energy, sits on the eastern side of the continental divide in a staunchly conservative part of the state, where its presence provides jobs and its profits generate taxable revenue for local governments. (The vast majority of its coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, goes to markets in Asia.)
But that revenue could potentially be diminished by tens of millions, according to calculations by Pancratz, if a bill introduced by U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., passes Congress. The Crow Revenue Act would convey federally held coal to Signal Peak through a land transfer to a private intermediary, depriving Musselshell County of its share of the taxes Signal Peak Energy pays to mine coal on federal land.
If the Crow Revenue Act does not pass Congress, Signal Peak says it could be forced to shut down if it loses a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana challenging the “energy emergency” the Trump administration used to grant the mine access to federal coal. That outcome would wipe out all the mine’s tax revenue and hundreds of jobs, the company claims. This month’s election hinged on Pancratz’s position on the bill and, by extension, the mine.
Musselshell County’s three commissioners, Mike Goffena, Mike Turley and Pancratz support keeping the mine open. But they also fear Musselshell County would need to raise taxes and cut services to balance its books if the Crow Revenue Act passes as written. After studying the county’s finances, Pancratz, who works as a risk analyst consultant, concluded that the county could lose as much as $11.6 million if the Crow Revenue Act passes and the price of coal is high. The commissioners have lobbied for changes to the bill that would guarantee the county some revenue from the land transfer.
Pancratz says he was just doing his job.
“As a risk manager, I have to develop a contingency plan for the possibility that the long-term stream of coal revenue could be disrupted or ended,” he said. “We needed to have a plan to effectively transition to other revenue sources. When I used the word transition, they took that as I was an environmentalist that was against coal.”
“Why anybody would have a problem with that is baffling to me. But that’s what happened.”
According to Pancratz, Signal Peak Energy branded the men as environmentalists who want to see the company shut down forever and this willful mischaracterization played a large role in his defeat.
“The picture they painted of me was totally false,” he said.
In a recording of a commissioner meeting posted to a local Facebook group by a Signal Peak Energy employee less than a month before the election, Pancratz, Goffena and Turley can be heard strategizing how to express their concerns about the Crow Revenue Act to Daines, whom they describe as unresponsive to their concerns.
Pancratz suggests asking for a $100 million endowment to transition from coal to “scare” Daines and Signal Peak Energy. Turley states that with funding at that level, they wouldn’t care if the mine was open or not.
“Exactly,” Pancratz responded.
Comments on the video show viewers expressing outrage that the commissioners would “play chicken” with the future of the mine, which provides hundreds of jobs in the surrounding area.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
Pancratz said the conversation was recorded without the commissioners’ knowledge. Montana is a two-party consent state, meaning all parties must be aware of and consent to a recording, but he allowed that it was possible one of the commissioners forgot to close a virtual public meeting after it concluded.
Pancratz said the conversation occurred when the commissioners found out there would be no money in the Crow Revenue Act for the county. The bill’s supporters, including Signal Peak Energy, had told them that the county would not lose any revenue under the bill, he said.
“We were upset because we felt we’d been lied to,” Pancratz said.
Signal Peak Energy did not respond to a written message and phone call seeking comment. For a time after Signal Peak took over the mine in the late 2000s, it was plagued by malfeasance, including embezzlement, a faked kidnapping and safety and environmental violations, according to reporting by The New York Times.
Olson said he entered the race due to a “lack of transparency” from the commissioners over how the county was spending its money.
But the mine played a role in his decision to run, too. As he was weighing his options, Olson said his cousin, Alan Olson, a former state legislator and former executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association, visited him and urged him to run to support the mine. After that conversation, he was convinced the mine’s survival depended on the Crow Revenue Act passing, and that trying to amend it would jeopardize the legislation.
“The more money we can get for the county, the better, but I don’t think it’s worth risking the mine closing,” Olson said. Losing federal revenue was better than losing all the jobs and the tax base if the mine closes, he concluded.
Olson added that Parker Phipps, Signal Peak Energy’s CEO, has briefed him on the mine’s fiscal relationship with Musselshell County.
Olson’s background in law enforcement could add a new perspective to the county commissioner meetings, given Goffena and Turley’s background in ranching, he said, but the minutiae of the county’s budget will be new to him.
“I am by no means an expert in any of this stuff,” he said.
Some worry that, with the mine facing a lawsuit, an unpredictable global coal market and the uncertain future of the Crow Revenue Act, the commissioners cannot afford to lose momentum in their efforts to attract new industries to the area.
Olson’s win in the primary will “set [economic diversification planning] back long term,” Nicole Borner, a former Musselshell County commissioner, who thinks Olson was hand-picked by the Signal Peak Energy to run and is not informed about what the job entails.
“We will always just have a few crumbs to duct tape a few issues,” she said. “We’ll never be able to fix the prior forty years of being in a coal bust and our infrastructure just literally falling apart.”
Olson will likely run unopposed in the general election.
In his remaining time in office, Pancratz said he will continue to push for economic diversification in Musselshell County. He holds no animosity towards Olson, who calls Pancratz “a wonderful guy.” Instead, he laments not addressing concerns over his position on the mine sooner in the campaign. But he believes Signal Peak Energy’s political and social influence—the company operates a charity in the region—is what swayed the election.
“You can’t say anything that even remotely implies that you’re trying to prepare the county for the possibility that coal revenue may not be steady or high … There’s this attitude that the county is in debt to that coal mine. And the message I tried to get out is, it’s more the reverse,” Pancratz said.
“I personally don’t believe the mine really cares about the county.”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
Jake Bolster
Reporter, Wyoming and the West
Jake Bolster reports on Wyoming and the West for Inside Climate News. Previously, he worked as a freelancer, covering climate change, energy, and the environment across the United States. He holds a Masters in Journalism from Columbia University.
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at June 19, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Mega Millions numbers from June 19 drawing
13-16-21-26-50, Mega Ball: 12
Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from June 19 drawing
05-12-14-30, Bonus: 03
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from June 19 drawing
02-20-28-51-54, Bonus: 02
Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?
- Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
- Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
- Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
- Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
- Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.
Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.
Montana
Montana State doctoral student awarded national research service grant for gut microbiome, arsenic research
-
Lifestyle25 minutes agoHow actress Laverne Cox became the woman of her dreams (CT+) : Consider This from NPR
-
Technology35 minutes agoThe Atlantic created a searchable database of the music used to train AI
-
World40 minutes agoKeir Starmer reportedly considering stepping down as PM and could announce timetable for departure
-
Politics47 minutes agoPope Leo sends unmistakable message on immigrants during visit honoring America’s first saint
-
Health50 minutes agoMale breast cancer survivor shares warning after unexpected diagnosis
-
Sports55 minutes agoJazz Chisholm explains why he still won’t wear a cup after fouling a pitch into his own groin
-
Technology1 hour agoTravel mistake puts phone, laptop and streaming accounts at risk
-
Business1 hour agoTractor-trailer crosses center divider in Irwindale, killing 1 and injuring 30
