Montana Attorney General Office statement on state Supreme Court upholding injunction against three pro-life laws
HELENA—Following the Montana Supreme Court’s decision upholding a lower court ruling that temporarily blocked three commonsense laws passed by the 2021 Legislature from taking effect while legal challenges play out, Montana Department of Justice spokeswoman Emilee Cantrell issued the following statement:
“The current standard for preliminary injunctions is so low that it’s not really a standard at all. As a result, constitutional laws like these may be blocked for months – or even years – before courts ever decide cases on the merits. Armstrong was wrong the day it was decided and its use in delaying these commonsense laws that protect the health and safety of Montana women makes that even more clear. It’s unfortunate that the state Supreme Court dodged that question and reaffirmed one of the most radical abortion regimes in the nation based on their made-up Armstrong decision.”
The sweeping language of the Armstrong decision has proven unworkable in practice as it seemingly calls into question every regulation of every medical provider. While the Montana Supreme Court has since narrowed its scope, challenges to basic public health and safety regulations will continue to arise “until the Court overrules Armstrong’s unqualified language once-and-for-all.”
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (House Bill 136) was carried by Representative Lola Sheldon-Galloway from Great Falls. It prohibits an abortion of an unborn baby capable of feeling pain, which the Legislature determined occurs when the gestational age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks.
The purposes of HB 136 include protecting the lives of unborn children, preventing procedures which will cause them grievous pain, decreasing the serious risks to women associated with late-term abortions, and maintaining the integrity of the medical profession.
House Bill 140, which was carried by Representative Amy Regier of Kalispell, enhances informed consent by requiring a person performing an abortion to inform the woman of the opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to her baby’s heartbeat. It doesn’t require the woman to view the ultrasound or listen to the fetal heartbeat—the provider must simply give her the option.
The Abortion-Inducing Drug Risk Protocol Act (House Bill 171), which was carried by Representative Sharon Greef of Florence, protects the health and welfare of women considering chemical abortions. It establishes a protocol for obtaining informed consent 24 hours before the abortion drugs are administered and requires that qualified medical practitioners only dispense chemical abortion drugs in person after a physical examination and for the practitioners to schedule a follow-up visit.
In the court filing appealing the lower court’s preliminary injunction, the Montana Attorney General’s office stated, “Planned Parenthood’s business is abortion, and these laws require modest changes to its business practices. So Plaintiffs asked the courts to do what they couldn’t through the legislative process—save them the trouble of providing better care to Montana women.”
###
|
