Texas isn’t the only state trying to uphold abortion restrictions. Similar to Texas, Montana has faced legal challenges to several pro-life laws the Legislature recently passed.
This week, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen asked a district court to dismiss a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood challenging the new restrictions. One of Montana’s new laws bans abortion after 20 weeks’ gestation. These and other protections are supposed to take effect on Oct. 1.
Laws like this, and the challenges that seem to follow inevitably, will undoubtedly test controversial cases such as Roe v. Wade but may also ignite a long-overdue battle over federalism.
Despite these challenges, these laws reflect the changing will toward a culture of life and show a desire to aid women with unplanned pregnancies, arming them with knowledge. They should stand.
Alliance Defending Freedom is working alongside Montana’s attorney general on this case. They filed a brief on Tuesday with the 13th Judicial District Court in Yellowstone County explaining why Planned Parenthood’s attempt to block these laws should be tossed out. Their argument explains the importance of federalism, a concept that seems to be largely ignored today:“[A]bortion providers who profit from performing as many abortions as possible … seek to overturn these modest standard-of-care improvements, which embody the judgment of the citizens’ elected legislators, and halt these duly enacted laws.”
Montana’s citizens elect legislators who pass laws presumably reflecting the will of the people. If this Legislature passed and the governor signed new pro-life laws, it seems accurate these also reflect a constituency that perhaps is not only more pro-life than other parts of the country but also protective of women’s health and their right to information.
These laws (HB 136, HB 171, HB 140, and HB 229) reflect a need for greater respect for federalism and show a slow but steady culture change that increasingly supports abortion restrictions. Montana’s laws focus not just on “restricting” abortion rights but also aiding women in crisis for their own safety and well-being.
One of the laws ensures women cannot be prescribed dangerous chemical abortion drugs without having a doctor examine them first (HB 171 ). Another law bans late-term abortions after six months due to the risk it poses to the baby and the mother and the pain the baby feels during an abortion (HB 136 ). Another ensures abortion providers give pregnant women an opportunity to see and hear an ultrasound of their baby before deciding on abortion (HB 140 ).
These laws are not only common sense and fair-minded but also demonstrate ways women can better cope with unplanned pregnancies. They show a deep concern for a woman’s welfare and the health of her unborn baby, too. These slow but clear cultural shifts seem normal and healthy. As science has improved to now observe a baby’s development, state legislatures have also evolved.
As a result, they have passed laws that demonstrate a more broad, nuanced concern for mother and baby. If anything, in an age of life-saving in utero fetal surgeries , Roe reads like a horror novel. Only barbarians offer up their babies “for the good of society.”
While I’d expect an abortion giant such as Planned Parenthood to attempt to interfere, it seems obvious that these laws are not unconstitutional but a reflection of the will of the Montana Legislature — and by extension, the citizens of Montana — and concern for unborn babies and their mothers. These small but profound acts of grace by the Legislature should be applauded for their concern, not blocked by Planned Parenthood.
