Lawmakers are making progress on new abortion regulations and disregarding measures aimed at safeguarding reproductive health access as the Legislature approaches a crucial deadline for transmitting bills.
The abortion proposals being put forth by different parties reflect the ongoing divide between them, suggesting that the topic remains a significant concern for lawmakers following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. While court cases have halted the implementation of restrictive laws passed in 2021, Montana stands out as one of the few states in the region where access to abortions remains legally unimpeded since the June ruling. This fact continues to cause distress among many Republicans.
“I hope on my tombstone it says, ‘I fought for the unborn,’” said Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, R-Great Falls, in remarks to the House Judiciary Committee Thursday as the sponsor of one abortion restriction, House Bill 575.
If it becomes law, that policy would ban abortion procedures if a fetus is considered viable and after 24 weeks unless the mother’s life is at risk. HB 575 is an expansion of a 20-week abortion ban bill that Sheldon-Galloway sponsored last session, one of the policies currently enjoined by a district court order.
Jeff Laszloffy from the Montana Family Foundation, along with other anti-abortion advocates, expressed their support for the bill.
According to Laszloffy, the bill delegates the decision of viability to medical experts. It merely mandates that a physician assess viability using the most current scientific information and survival data.
Detractors argued that HB 575 is redundant as the viability standard is already encompassed within Montana state law. Conversely, reproductive rights activists and medical associations contended that the bill’s wording would introduce obstacles for doctors and patients dealing with high-risk pregnancies where determining viability is challenging.
Dr. Timothy Mitchell, a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine from Missoula, explains that these pregnancies are highly sought after due to severe birth defects or complications that pose a significant risk to the mother’s health or the imminent delivery of the baby. It is a common misconception that viability solely depends on a specific gestational age, whereas the truth is that various factors play a role in determining the outcomes of these pregnancies.
The League of Women Voters had another representative who expressed their perspective in an even more straightforward manner.
Robin Morrison stated that there is absolutely no space or opportunity for the government to interfere in high-risk pregnancies. Morrison referred to HB 575 as a hazardous and potentially fatal violation of women’s rights to privacy and dignity.
The committee did not vote on Sheldon-Galloway’s bill during its hearing, but it is expected to be taken into consideration later this week.
Lawmakers on Thursday did approve along party lines House Bill 544, a bill to add requirements for covering “medically necessary” abortions with state Medicaid dollars. The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Jane Gillette, R-Bozeman, mirrors a Gianforte administration rule proposal under consideration by the state health department.
During a hearing on Wednesday morning before the House Judiciary Committee, there was a lack of proponents. However, numerous opponents expressed concerns that HB 544 is in conflict with the state’s legal safeguards for abortion, as it restricts access for low-income individuals in Montana.
Robin Turner, a lobbyist representing the ACLU of Montana, expressed concern about the potential consequences of this ban. According to Turner, low-income patients in the state will face financial burdens as they will be compelled to continue their pregnancies. Turner also predicted that if this bill is approved, legal action will likely be taken, resulting in an injunction.
A Democrat-backed measure heard by the committee this week, House Bill 570, would have created civil penalties for “intentionally or negligently” interfering with a person’s access to reproductive health care. The majority Republican voted down that bill, sponsored by Rep. Marilyn Marler, D-Missoula, Thursday in a partisan 13-6 split. Another Democratic proposal brought by Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, would have allowed patients to seek abortion in accordance with their “sincerely held religious tenets.” House Bill 471 was rejected by the same margin earlier this week.
The movement comes as a national poll from the Public Religion Research Institute released this week shows that 64% of Montanans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That response put Montana above its neighboring states, where support ranged between 42 and 56%.
The bills passed by the committee were not the first abortion policies considered this session. Another bill, Senate Bill 154, would insert an interpretation of Montana’s right to privacy as not including abortion access into state law. That bill was transmitted to the House in January after passing the Senate by a comfortable margin.
During the 90-day session, any general bills must go through committee approval, pass in the full chamber, and be transmitted to the House or Senate by March 3, which is known as the transmittal deadline. Bills that fail to meet these requirements are considered inactive for the rest of the session.
