‘Personhood' for embryos fails, other abortion bills head to governor's desk
Photo illustration by Getty Images.
Voters in Montana won't see a proposed constitutional amendment to confer 'personhood' rights on embryos, but a couple of other bills related to abortion are headed to the desk of Gov. Greg Gianforte.
Last week, House Bill 316 sponsored by Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, failed to earn the minimum 100 votes out of 150 in the Montana Legislature needed to present a constitutional amendment to voters.
The bill came following the passage in November 2024 of Constitutional Initiative 128 to protect abortion. It passed with 58% of the vote.
In a statement Friday, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana CEO and President Martha Fuller said Montanans will rest easier knowing the attempt to ignore their wishes and 'undermine the right to an abortion' has failed.
'The government is not now and never will be the expert on the lives, families or pregnancies of Montanans — it's high time for politicians to respect the personal and medical privacy of their constituents,' Fuller said in a statement about HB 316.
The bill earned 58 'yes' votes in the House and 33 'yes' votes in the Senate on third readings.
The 2025 Montana Legislature has taken up other bills related to abortion, although legislators tabled a number of them. However, House Bill 388 and Senate Bill 154 both are headed to the desk of Gianforte.
HB 388, sponsored by Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, would allow pregnancy centers to operate without regulation.
Proponents including the Montana Family Foundation said those centers should not be punished for refusing to facilitate abortions, according to reporting from the Montana State News Bureau.
Opponents said those facilities are not required to provide legitimate medical information or protect privacy, and they misinform clients.
SB 154, sponsored by Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, prohibits the sale of whole human bodies and human fetal tissue, which is already illegal under federal law.
On the Senate floor earlier this session, Emrich said it was 'a great bill' and makes sure bodies and fetal tissue are 'being donated and not sold as a commodity inside the state of Montana.'
In the final debate on HB 316, which took place in the Senate on Thursday, Sen. Vince Ricci, R-Billings, said he couldn't imagine a greater violation of human dignity or of privacy than abortion.
'The state has a compelling interest (in) protecting the lives of the most vulnerable human beings, and the human being … in the womb has … a life interest equal to that of his or her mother,' said Ricci, who carried the bill.
Sen. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls, said those who supported the protection of abortion approved a measure that is 'immoral and wrong.'
'I think abortion is murder, and I'll catch heck for that I'm sure, but it's the killing of a person, a formed, live person. Making it a right to privacy is baloney,' Trebas said.
He said the Montana Supreme Court made an inappropriate link to privacy when it extended it to abortion because 'this is the child's body that we're talking about. And they have a right to life.'
Minority Leader Pat Flowers said Montanans don't support the attacks against the right to privacy, and it was time to focus on other issues, such as tax bills.
'Call it baloney or not, it's in the Constitution, and it's an important right,' said Flowers, D-Belgrade.
Sen. Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman, said the bill would outlaw in vitro fertilization, and Montanans all love mothers and babies and want more of them in the state.
Neumann also asked if the state should control men's bodies.
'If we're going to try to have this type of control over women's bodies, because the fetus is part of the woman's body, are we also going to try to have this type of control over men's bodies?' Neumann said.'Are we going to regulate ejaculation? This is what we're talking about. We are talking about regulating the internal parts of bodies.'
Sen. Laura Smith, D-Helena, said the bill could create a 'legal quagmire' for any doctor who needed to provide medical care to a pregnant woman who was experiencing a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.
'This legislation would effectively tie doctors' hands rather than allowing them to treat their patients without fear or prosecution,' said Smith, a lawyer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Rand Paul says White House excluded his family from picnic as punishment
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said the Trump administration has excluded him and his family from a picnic at the White House in what he believes to be an act of retribution, politicizing an annual celebration of bipartisanship over Paul's refusal to support the president's signature legislation. 'We just tried to get our tickets today, and they said, 'You were not invited,' ' Paul told reporters outside the Capitol on Wednesday. While he said he did now know exactly who left him out, he added, 'I think that it's somebody acting in a very petty way.'
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Epoch Times
35 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Strips Reconciliation-Ineligible Provisions From ‘Big Beautiful Bill' in Procedural Vote
The House of Representatives on June 11 approved a procedural resolution to make changes to the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, stripping provisions that would make the bill ineligible for a filibuster-proof vote in the Senate. The resolution passed in a 213–207 vote along party lines. This changes the bill without the need for another vote on the full package.
