This week, a bill was presented in the Montana Legislature that took a different approach to discussions on abortion access. Contrary to the usual scenario where reproductive rights advocates oppose restrictive bills, they stood in favor of this legislation, arguing that it would safeguard privacy rights by legally establishing abortion in state law. Conversely, opponents urged lawmakers to reject the bill, labeling it as “radical” and an “all encompassing piece of pro-abortion legislation.”
House Bill 432, brought by Rep. Laurie Bishop, D-Livingston, would align Montana’s code with past court rulings and existing constitutional rights that protect private medical choice, the sponsor said during Tuesday’s hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.
Bishop stated in her opening statement that the bill aims to clarify the existing legal situation in Montana and represents the current state constitutional protection for abortion rights. She emphasized that it codifies statutory safeguards for abortion that align with the current constitutional provisions.
The bill also eliminates certain sections of the Montana code pertaining to abortion, which Bishop claimed were legally unenforceable. These include a mandate for parental consent when minors seek abortion services, the requirement for informed consent from the patient, the prohibition of what state law considers a “partial-birth abortion,” and the restriction on abortion providers contributing to sex education classes in public school districts.
Bishop stated that the sections that have been struck down or repealed are deemed unconstitutional or are currently under court injunction. She further explained that, similar to other attempts made during this session to minimize unnecessary laws, the only solution for outdated code that no longer aligns with our existing laws is to repeal it.
Bishop was accompanied by a group of 18 supporters, which included Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, Missoula’s Blue Mountain Clinic, women’s rights organizations, and individuals who shared personal testimonies about their choices to terminate pregnancies. Among them was Anne Angus, who disclosed her decision to undergo an abortion upon discovering severe renal system deformities in her unborn baby.
Angus emphasized the ongoing debate on parental rights during the session, stating that abortion should be recognized as one of these rights. As a mother, Angus firmly believes that she should have the autonomy to make healthcare choices for her pregnancy and her child. Sadly, she acknowledged that not all situations have a positive outcome, leaving individuals with difficult decisions to make. Angus argued that limiting access to abortion puts mothers like herself in a position where they must carry pregnancies that are not viable. She posed a poignant question, asking how one can mentally and emotionally prepare for giving birth when they know their baby will never come home.
Supporters of HB 432 argue that the policy is in line with Montana’s strong dedication to personal privacy and the freedom to make medical decisions. They believe it aligns with the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling in Armstrong v. State, which legalized abortion in the state back in 1999.
“Our bodies are not wards of the state,” said proponent Carol Wilder. “Women in Montana must continue to be allowed to choose their own health care for their own bodies, just as men are allowed to. No one’s private health care decisions, men’s or women’s, should be decided by politicians in Helena.” Roughly the same number of opponents spoke against the bill on Tuesday, including representatives from the conservative anti-abortion groups the Montana Family Foundation and Students for Life Action, House Majority Leader Sue Vinton, R-Billings, and other Montana residents.
According to Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation, the bill currently presented is unquestionably the most extreme and all-inclusive pro-abortion legislation ever introduced in the entire history of the Montana Legislature. What’s more, it is completely disconnected from the preferences and opinions of the electorate.
According to Laszloffy, in order to maintain the possibility of overturning the Armstrong decision, lawmakers should retain the existing laws included in the bill’s extensive repeal.
He stated that all the laws present in this bill, which are subject to repeal, have been approved by this governing body. Furthermore, he expressed confidence that, similar to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade, the Montana Supreme Court will eventually reconsider and overturn Armstrong. Once that happens, all these laws will already be established and prepared for enforcement.
Several other opponents focused on specific sections of law HB 432 would scrub, including the prohibition on abortion providers contributing to school district health curricula and the requirements for parental consent when minors seek an abortion. While the latter policy is currently enjoined as part of an ongoing lawsuit, opponents of HB 432 said the statue provides an important protection for minors.
Kaitlyn Ruch, a member of Students for Life Action, pointed out the irony of her situation during her testimony in front of this committee. She mentioned that the last time she testified, she was only 16 years old, barely old enough to drive and restricted from various activities like buying a lottery ticket, voting, watching an R-rated movie, applying for a mortgage, or even getting an aspirin from the school nurse without her parents’ permission. However, if this bill had been in effect, she would have been allowed to get an abortion without her parents ever knowing. She questioned the logic behind such a contradiction.
During Tuesday’s hearing on abortion, lawmakers bombarded proponents, opponents, and Bishop with a wide range of philosophical and practical questions. These queries delved into the consequences that would arise from repealing certain sections of code.
“Would you say that a yes vote today for your bill would be somebody consenting that they would be okay with partial-birth abortion happening in Montana today?” said Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, R-Great Falls, referencing a non-medical term in Montana’s code that has been interpreted to apply to abortions after the first trimester. A similar federal prohibition, which includes exceptions if a woman’s life is at risk, has been in place since 2007.
Bishop argued that the portion of the code, along with other sections mentioned in HB 432, would not meet constitutional requirements in Montana.
Bishop responded, stating that a yes vote on my bill today would acknowledge the lack of constitutionality in the legislation mentioned. It would affirm that the laws within our code should accurately reflect the actual laws in place. If a provision is deemed unconstitutional and no longer enforceable, it should be acknowledged as such, regardless of the wording used.
Bishop aimed to refute the claims made by Laszloffy and other opponents of HB 432, who labeled it as an extreme or radical policy, during her concluding statements to lawmakers.
Bishop pointed out that this bill highlights the numerous pieces of legislation that have been presented to this body, which are not in line with the constitution and have infringed upon the rights of Montanans. He urged everyone to reflect on the extensive list and consider the perspective that sheds light on the radical nature of these proposals.
The bill was not voted on by the committee on Tuesday.
