Raw Story

Montana Supreme Court strikes down trio of abortion bills as unconstitutional

by Darrell Ehrlick, Daily Montanan
June 11, 2025

A trio of abortion-related bills, passed in 2021, were declared unconstitutional by a nearly unanimous Montana Supreme Court on Monday.

Nearly, because Justice Jim Rice wrote both a concurring and dissenting opinion affirming again Montana’s constitutionally protected right-to-privacy, which includes medical procedures and abortion.

The laws were halted before they could even be practically enacted, so the hurdles to the procedure, including waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound, a pile of documentation and banning abortion after 20 weeks, even before the point of fetal viability, never rippled throughout the state.

Justice Beth Baker wrote the opinion on behalf of the court, which not only reaffirmed the state Constitution’s right-to-privacy as unique and separate from federal cases on abortion, but also took the state to task for failing to support its claim that the State of Montana had a compelling interest in abortion, while not proving that any of the legislative hurdles were scientifically supported.

The lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood of Montana, and had a handful of other entities that wrote friends-of-the-court briefs, including a group of delegates to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention.

The three laws that were challenged were House Bill 136, House Bill 140 and House Bill 171:

• HB 136 would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, even though expert opinion agreed that fetal viability is not possible until at least 22 weeks.
• HB 171 would have put paperwork and more requirements for healthcare providers who provide abortion via medication or telehealth, subjecting them to both civil and criminal penalties.
• HB 180 would have required healthcare professionals to provide both ultrasound and fetal heartbeat tones to those considering abortion, and requiring a patient to sign a form created by the state, demonstrating that the patient had been offered the choice, and yet declined.

Because fetal viability — or the concept a child can survive outside the womb — is dictated by a host of factors, including medical science and approximate age of the fetus, the court rejected the state’s attempts to prescribe a fixed number of weeks for viability.

“A fixed gestational age that does not allow a provider’s case-specific determination fails to ensure that the government does not interfere with an individual’s private medical decision,” the ruling said. “Until a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb, the right of personal autonomy belongs to the person on whose body the fetus depends.

“We find no legal authority for the idea that the state’s interest in preserving fetal life or the fetus’ right to life takes precedence over all constitutional protections and dignities of the mother.”

Attorneys for the state had argued that physical safety risks of abortion increase as the pregnancy progresses, and that abortions lead to worse mental health outcomes, an argument that the Supreme Court dismissed and debunked.

“The record shows that abortion is safe,” the decision said. “As the district court noted, there were zero deaths cause by abortion in Montana between 2010 and 2020 and only 25 of 8,402 (0.3%) reported abortions in Montana from 2016 to 2021 resulted in complications. This court cannot find a bona fide health risk simply based on a detailed step-by-step description of what the state defines as ‘barbaric’ and ‘gruesome’ procedure when the overwhelming evidence shows that procedural abortions are safe.”

The ruling also said if the state wanted to address health outcomes or mental health issues, banning abortion was not the least restrictive way to do it.

The court also pointed out waiting-periods and requiring multiple in-person visits, as outlined by HB 171, actually increased the odds of harm or complications, instead of avoiding them.

“The record demonstrates that compliance with the 24-hour wait period, the multiple in-person visits, and the telehealth ban serve only to delay access to abortion care — thus increasing the odds that the patient will not be able to obtain an abortion or increasing the odds of the very complications this state asserts it wishes to protect against,” the opinion said.

The ruling also said in addition to violating the state’s constitutional provisions for privacy, it also impacted physician’s free-speech rights by requiring them to provide forms and documents, for example, information about a disputed abortion reversal procedure, that have not been medically verified or supported. They said HB 171 compelled healthcare professionals to give advice contrary to their training and conscience.

Physicians and experts also raised concerns about the state’s assertion abortion led to other health care concerns, for example, an increase in breast cancer, which has never been scientifically established.

“Forcing medical providers to give medical advice that they disagree with — like the safety and efficacy of abortion reversal — is a form of compelled-speech triggering protections,” the ruling said. “(Planned Parenthood) asserts that patients may mistakenly understand the consent form to indicate DPHHS’s and their provider’s approval of abortion reversal.”

The ruling calls such compelled speech egregious because it “favors one viewpoint over another — namely, the viewpoint that abortion reversal is safe and possible over the judgements and viewpoints of providers that it is unsafe, ineffective and undermines informed consent.”

The court noted the state does not mandate documentation or consent that requires medical providers to discuss the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Finally, the court also called into question the real purpose of HB 140, which mandates ultrasounds and fetal heart tones before an abortion, something that providers said either happens during the course of pregnancy, but may not be medically necessary.

“The court stated it was ‘left with the strong impression that the law aims to advance the ulterior motive of discouraging abortion,’ which is unacceptable under the law,” the ruling said.

Montana’s highest court found that in the case of HB 140, it was exactly substituting the judgment of the state, and the lawmakers who supported it, with the views of the doctor.

The case was active for several years of litigation, and had district court Judge Amy Eddy sitting in place of former Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who retired at the end of 2024, as well as Judge Shane Vannatta, who was sitting in for Dirk Sandefur, who also retired.

McGrath has since been replaced by Chief Justice Cory Swanson, and Sandefur was succeeded by Justice Katherine Bidegaray.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

Democratic leaders are struggling to mount a unified response to Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, as party officials “watched in horror” at the president’s escalating tactics in Los Angeles.

That’s according to a new report in The Bulwark, which described Wednesday how protests over ICE raids have become a “playground for Donald Trump’s authoritarian fantasies.” But while Democrats have mostly come out to condemn the raids and the use of the National Guard to target immigrant communities, including garment workers and day laborers, many in the party remain uncertain about how to confront Trump politically.

Democratic leaders are “all over the place,” one prominent immigration advocate told The Bulwark. A Democratic aide described a House caucus meeting Tuesday meant to hone the party's message as “boring” with no strategy.

The internal chaos comes as the party has, so far, been unable “to unite around a single, effective countermessage about Trump’s trampling of L.A.,” according to the report. And behind closed doors, frustrations are boiling.

“The diverging approaches and bubbling frustrations attest to the unease many Democrats continue to feel in conversations about immigration,” The Bulwark said. “It’s also highlighted that the Democratic party remains in disagreement over how much urgency and alarm it should offer in response to what many believe is an existential threat to American democracy.”

“Democrats aren’t going to be able to wish away the news coverage that for the last few days has been dominating the news cycle, simply because we decide we have nothing to say,” one Congressional Hispanic Caucus member said.

Still others in the party, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have emerged in the public debate with a sharper tone targeting Trump. The Democratic governor warned Tuesday in a nationally televised address that “democracy is under assault before our eyes.”

But while Democrats “continue to struggle to find their footing,” some fear that the internal party debate will allow Trump to control the narrative, the Bulwark added, as Trump plows ahead with his escalating immigration enforcement threats.

Nearly a dozen Republican senators reacted with visible discomfort Wednesday as they snapped, stared into space and retreated into elevators, rather than face questions about President Donald Trump's $45 million military parade, HuffPost reported.

Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) wasn’t having it.

“Nope,” he said when asked if he planned on attending the Saturday spectacle, which is set to include warplanes, tanks and a multimillion-dollar military parade on the National Mall. When pressed on the cost, the Indiana lawmaker pivoted.

“I’m focused on the trillions right now, which is the reconciliation bill,” Young said. But when HuffPost pointed out he hadn’t answered the question, Young snapped: “I answered the question I wanted to answer!”

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) said she wouldn’t be in Washington, D.C., then gazed blankly into a Senate elevator as its doors closed after remarking, “But I wish I was.”

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) stayed silent for eight seconds, grinned, and slipped into another elevator when asked his thoughts on the parade on Wednesday, HuffPost reported.

“No comment,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said. “No comment.” While Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) simply said she doesn’t “do hallway interviews.” HuffPost pointed out in its report Wednesday that “most conversations with the press happen in Senate hallways.”

Saturday’s parade – an event that will honor both the Army’s 250th anniversary and Trump's own 79th birthday – will feature thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft rolling through the streets of D.C.. While Republicans have long railed against government waste, especially in the face of recent DOGE-related efforts, few in the GOP have publicly criticized the upcoming display.

Only Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke out among the group of 14 GOP senators the outlet spoke to – not just because of the steep price – but also because he doesn’t consider “the symbolism of tanks and missiles” to be representative of what the United States is all about.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) unloaded on the Republican-majority House Oversight Committee on Thursday for their treatment of Democratic governors being grilled for their states containing sanctuary cities, calling it "thuggery."

After listing off examples of ICE brutally snatching up immigrants, the Massachusetts lawmaker blew up on Kentucky Republican Rep. James Comer's committee shouting at them and equating what is going on under Donald Trump with Nazism.

"This is disgraceful, it should not happen in this country," he shouted. "It's wrong. Deploying the military against the civilian population is wrong! And if we don't step up this will continue. If we don't step up and declare what is right under our Constitution, then other cities, other citizens will meet this same fate."

"I'm proud of my Democratic colleagues who are willing to stand up to this thuggery," He exclaimed. "Trump is a wannabe gangster. He's showing the world what he is about."

"You know my Dad served in the Second World War, he fought the Nazi's in Northern Africa, he fought the Nazis on the Italian peninsula," he continued. "And I think he is looking down right now, and he's happy that I am fighting today's Nazis.'

You can watch below or at the link.

- YouTube youtu.be

When Donald Trump narrowly defeated Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the United States' 2024 election, he did so with a combination of MAGA diehards and independents. There are huge differences between the between the two: While Trump's hardcore MAGA base consists of true believers, many independents and swing voters favored Joe Biden in the 2020 election but —feeling frustrated over inflation — went with Trump four years later.

In a guest op-ed published on June 9, sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild examines an area that's full of MAGA diehards: Eastern Kentucky. And he wonders if draconian cuts to safety-net programs could possibly turn MAGA voters against Trump.

"In the first months of Mr. Trump's second term," Hochschild observes, "his story of loss, shame, blame and retribution has split the country into two emotional zones. Many in America's blue half have begun to feel a strange fear. They suddenly have to worry about losing college scholarships, jobs, grants, medical care, and protection from the prying eyes of government officials gathering information from their social media posts. They have heard themselves described, in Mr. Trump’s Memorial Day tweet, as 'scum.' Public officials whose security detail he's withdrawn fear for their safety. Federal judges who've ruled against Mr. Trump have received threatening phone calls."

Hochschild continues, "What do things feel like, I wondered, to the people in Kentucky’s Fifth District? Are we approaching a tipping point when they might start to question Mr. Trump — either because of his threats to democracy, or because his economic policies will make their lives tougher? After all, experts predict Mr. Trump's tariffs will raise prices, and his budget cuts will hit some of his strongest supporters the hardest."

Andrew Scott, the pro-Trump mayor of Coal Run Village, Kentucky, doesn't believe support for Trump will waver among his hardcore base — regardless of economic policies.

Scott told Hochschild, "You know how proud and stoic Appalachians are — we know how to take a little pain. People may have to suffer now to help make America great later. Trump's tariffs could raise prices, but that will force companies to gradually relocate to the U.S."

According to the sociologist, many of the Kentucky residents he interviewed "recognized that" the budget cuts in Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 "would create some pain for them or their neighbors, but that didn't seem to bother them."

But drug counselor James Browning isn't so sure that Trump voters in Kentucky will stick with him if his policies cause them hardship.

Browning told Hochschild, "A lot of people around here are living on the edge. If we start to see Trump policies lead to price hikes and benefit cuts — especially Medicaid and Social Security and food stamps — some people will begin to say, 'Wait a minute. I didn’t vote for this.'"

Arlie Russell Hochschild's full New York Times op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi has been looking closer at the May jobs report, which was released last week. The more he examines it, however, the more his concern grows.

In an X thread Monday, Zandi confessed, "The more I cogitate on the May jobs report, released last Friday by the BLS, the more uncomfortable I get about the economy’s prospects. There are a bunch of reasons why."

He thinks that job growth has actually screeched to a halt, and the reason might come from the impact of Trump's mass deportations.

"Given the new population controls, measuring labor force growth is tricky, but by my calculation, it’s at a standstill. Look to the severe restrictions on immigration," Zandi wrote. "This time last year, the foreign-born labor force was growing 5%. It’s now declining. The native-born labor force remains moribund."

He went on to caution that large industries will suffer as a result of the deportations. When Trump was campaigning in 2024, he said that he wanted to deport only criminals. Instead, it's been a broader targeting of all immigrants. Federal agents have shown up at schools to target children.

Even the Latinos for Trump co-founder has spoken out against the way the policy has widened.

"The implications of a flagging labor force are disconcerting," said Zandi. "It means serious disruptions to businesses that rely on immigrant labor, ranging from construction and agriculture to hospitality and retailing. It also means higher inflation, just when the higher tariffs are set to push up prices."

"It also means the economy’s real potential GDP growth – that pace of growth consistent with stable inflation – is much lower," he added. "It is currently closer to 1% than the 2% we have come to think of as typical. Think of what this means for everything from asset returns to our already dire fiscal outlook."

Listen to his full podcast, "Yellow Flags," here.