Latest news with #HB121
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge extends pause on ‘bathroom bill' with preliminary injunction
A sign outside one of the bathrooms in the Montana State Capitol. House Bill 121 would restrict access to bathrooms based strictly on biological sex. (Micah Drew/ Daily Montanan) A district court judge in Missoula extended a pause on state officials from enforcing a new Montana law restricting access to public restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping spaces based on an individual's sex assigned at birth. Missoula District Court Judge Shane Vannatta's 51-page ruling Friday delivered a preliminary injunction blocking House Bill 121 from being enforced. Vannatta last month issued a temporary restraining order on the bill. 'This ruling reaffirms the truth about bathroom bans: they're motivated by prejudice, and they don't protect anyone,' said Robin Turner, Montana staff attorney at Legal Voice working with the plaintiffs, said in a statement. 'HB 121 undermines Montana's strong constitutional protections against government overreach and subjects people to unacceptable privacy violations. Transgender people are vulnerable to violence in restrooms, and they deserve protection instead of persecution.' HB 121, sponsored by Billings Republican Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, applies to all public facilities and those that receive public funding, including correctional centers, juvenile detention facilities, local domestic violence programs, public buildings and public schools. It includes leased public spaces and covers libraries, museums, hospitals, and university buildings, and it requires covered entities to 'take reasonable steps' to keep members of the opposite sex out. In the suit, plaintiffs, including transgender and intersex Montanans, argue HB 121 violates their rights under the state constitution, including 'the rights to equal protection, privacy, to pursue life's basic necessities, and due process.' Attorneys for the State of Montana argued that the law is intended to provide additional protection and privacy for women and girls in these spaces from biological males. 'Today, we're maintaining equal opportunity for all Americans, while also protecting women and girls and their right to safe and separate facilities and activities,' Gianforte said in a statement when he signed HB 121 in March. 'Because we think it's pretty simple. A man shouldn't be in a women's restroom. Shouldn't be in a women's shower room. And shouldn't be housed in a women's prison.' In the court ruling, Vannatta says that the state's argument that the law is not discriminatory against transgender people — because the definitions of 'sex,' 'male,' and 'female' apply to all Montanans — is 'disingenuous.' The plaintiffs in court documents argued that transgender Montanans have been subjected to repeated unequal treatment by the state, pointing to five separate bills passed by the Montana Legislature over the last three sessions that target transgender individuals. 'Transgender Montanans have been subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment and have been relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection.' The court order also says that the state has so far failed to support its arguments that the law helps protect women by not providing evidence of 'how female privacy and safety are threatened by trans females.' 'In addition, the State does not provide evidence of how the safety of trans females may be implicated by requiring trans females to use men's restrooms. The State does not provide evidence of how cis female privacy and safety may be implicated by requiring trans males to use the women's restrooms,' according to the order. The state can appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the preliminary injunction will remain in place until the court rules on the complaint. The decision follows another last week by a Missoula County District Court judge that permanently struck down a law from the 2023 Legislature that sought to ban gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missoula judge continues pause Montana's ‘bathroom bill'
A sign outside one of the bathrooms in the Montana State Capitol. House Bill 121 would restrict access to bathrooms based strictly on biological sex. (Micah Drew/ Daily Montanan) Say a man who transitioned after being born a woman walks into a women's bathroom, as House Bill 121 would require him to do. The man has XX chromosomes but transitioned, and he outwardly presents as a man. Monday, Missoula County District Court Judge Shane Vannatta asked lawyers in a dispute about HB 121 how Missoula County, for instance, should enforce that situation. House Bill 121 requires public restrooms and changing areas exclusively for males or females, requires people to use bathrooms based on 'external genitalia present at birth,' and defines sex as strictly male and female. It says a library or prison or museum, for example, 'shall take reasonable steps' to provide individuals with privacy from members of the opposite sex. Also, it says an individual who 'encounters another individual of the opposite sex' in the restroom can file a civil lawsuit against the 'covered entity,' such as a prison, domestic violence shelter or school. In the court hearing on HB 121, Vannatta said in his hypothetical situation, a clerk who sees the transgender man walk into the bathroom might decide to sue the county. The bill allows individuals to sue for failing to 'take reasonable steps' to prohibit the other individuals from using the bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex. Then what? Thane Johnson, on behalf of the state, said it was the toughest situation he could think of related to the bill at issue in Perkins et al v. State of Montana. 'You raise a good hypothetical. I can't deny that,' Johnson said. But he also said the bill is 'a little bit bigger' than being just a 'bathroom bill.' He said the bill aims to protect women and young girls in facilities 'where they have no choice,' such as detention centers. 'I think there are other issues that are dealt with by this bill that are important, and that's my point,' Johnson said. But Alex Rate, with the ACLU of Montana, said that situation is one of the 'fatal problems' with the 'disingenuous' law, and it's one way harm starts to pile up for the clients of the ACLU and Legal Voice. The plaintiffs allege the bill is illegal and violates the rights of clients under the state constitution, including 'the rights to equal protection, privacy, to pursue life's basic necessities, and due process.' Rate said the clerk would sue Missoula County for failing to enforce HB 121, discovery would happen, and the transgender man just wanting to use the bathroom would be caught in the middle. 'That individual — who is doing nothing wrong and who is entirely removed from the dispute between the individual and the covered entity — would be dragged into a lawsuit,' Rate said. In his remarks to the court, Rate also said the enforcement was problematic in that it created a 'bounty hunter system.' 'It turns our state into a vigilante state, where ordinary citizens are incentivized to file lawsuits against state and local governments if they perceive that somebody is using the, quote, incorrect public facility,' Rate said. Rate said the harm to people who are transgender and intersex starts immediately, although Johnson countered that the law needs time to be implemented. However, the lawyers agreed to Vannatta's request for time to issue an order. The bill landed in court on the same day Gov. Greg Gianforte signed it, and Vannatta issued a temporary restraining order soon after, halting implementation of the bill, but only for a matter of days. With approval from the lawyers, however, Vannatta said Monday that he wanted to extend that expiring order through May 16 in order to give himself time to craft a new decision on the request to stop the bill through a final court decision. The ACLU had asked for an order from the bench, or an immediate and verbal ruling, but Vannatta said he wanted to issue one in writing so the parties would have a rationale they could appeal. In recent years, the Montana Legislature has approved numerous bills that affect people who are transgender, and in his arguments Monday, Rate said HB 121 is the most recent volley in a trend since 2018. 'This case challenges the latest manifestation of this state's peculiar obsession with singling out transgender and intersex Montanans for discrimination and harassment,' Rate said. Rate said the bill includes a definition of sex from an earlier bill, Senate Bill 458, which the same district court found had unconstitutionally treated cisgender individuals — whose gender aligns with their sex at birth — differently than transgender and intersex individuals. But Rate said HB 121 is 'particularly bigoted' because it bans trans people from using public restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping quarters — at domestic violence shelters — that correspond with their gender identity. 'It forces trans people to out themselves by using public facilities according to their sex assigned at birth,' Rate said. He said it prevents intersex people from using public facilities altogether. Rate said the case reminded him of the fight over a different bill, one that eliminated Election Day registration. He said the purported government interest was to prevent voter fraud, but the state's lead witness had to search historical records to find any. In the current case, he said, nearly 60% of people who are transgender report avoiding public restrooms to avoid confrontation given they are already vulnerable to violence, and his client's declaration included evidence of fear. And laws already on the books address other protections. 'We've got laws criminalizing indecent exposure,' Rate said. 'We've got laws criminalizing sexual assault and violence. 'So there's no need to adopt a law as draconian as HB 121 when individuals in public facilities are already protected.' On behalf of the state, Johnson, however, said the law was the 'Safe Space for Women and Girls Act,' a protection that resonated with his own experience. Johnson said he recalled serving as a tribal court judge and seeing the number of young girls that became victims of sexual assault, and because federal prosecutors were slow in prosecuting, he saw juvenile offenders who were young girls. 'They acted out as a result of being a victim of sexual crime,' Johnson said. He said he acknowledges people who are transgender are vulnerable, but he said they are not the only ones in that situation. He pointed to young girls, and especially those in a juvenile detention center, which the bill includes. Johnson also said the Montana Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court could help if they decided whether sex discrimination includes transgender discrimination, but the question is still an open one. At the same time, Johnson said, some of the fixes are simple, such as privacy for bathrooms. He said at one campus, 'single use' simply meant creating privacy in the form of porta potties and ensuring locks on doors. Vannatta, though, imagined what might happen during a game if the University of Montana decided to turn a bathroom with multiple stalls into a single-use restroom with 40 people waiting in line. However, the judge also said the issue Johnson raised about safety in corrections facilities resonated with him. Vannatta said he had talked to many judges who are 'perplexed' when it comes time to sentence people to jail or prison who are trans or in the midst of a transition in ways that keep them safe and keep the broader population safe. The judge also asked Johnson questions about a couple of situations the lawyer raised, including a Helena girl scared by a man who followed her into a bathroom. 'Was that a trans man or transgender individual?' the judge said. Johnson said he didn't have any indication the person was transgender, but he said the person assaulted the girl. Vannatta also asked if Johnson had evidence that trans individuals have committed sexual assault in bathrooms or changing areas, the areas the bill is intended to protect. Johnson said not in Montana, but outside the state. In response to the judge's request for statistics, Johnson said he believed a person in North Carolina was sexually assaulted in a school bathroom by a person who had claimed to be transgender. However, he said he believes 'there are probably statistics developing,' and if the case proceeds, the state would compile them as best it could. In general, Johnson said it was too early to see how the law was working, and he urged the court to take a step back and allow it to take effect. 'My bottom line, your honor, is this case cries for some factual development. Let's see how it plays out,' Johnson said.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge grants temporary restraining order against ‘bathroom bill' governor signed last week
A sign outside one of the bathrooms in the Montana State Capitol. House Bill 121 would restrict access to bathrooms based strictly on biological sex. (Micah Drew/ Daily Montanan) A district court judge in Missoula on Tuesday temporarily blocked state officials from enforcing a new Montana law restricting access to public restrooms, changing rooms and sleeping spaces based on an individual's sex assigned at birth. Missoula District Court Judge Shane Vannatta's ruling said a temporary restraining order on House Bill 121 is warranted and will preserve the status quo until the court can rule on a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court scheduled a hearing for April 21. Gov. Greg Gianforte signed HB 121 last Thursday, praising the legislature's speedy passage of a bill that safeguards 'fairness, privacy and security for women and girls.' The same day, the ACLU of Montana filed a lawsuit on behalf of five transgender and intersex individuals from across Montana who would be 'immediately' impacted by the 'terrible law,' according to the organization's legal director, Alex Rate. The Governor's Office did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The law, introduced by Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings, applies to all public facilities and those that receive public funding, including correctional centers, juvenile detention facilities, local domestic violence programs, public buildings, and public schools. It includes leased public spaces and covers libraries, museums, hospitals, and university buildings. In the suit, the five plaintiffs allege HB 121 violates their rights under the state constitution including 'the rights to equal protection, privacy, to pursue life's basic necessities, and due process.' If implemented, the bill 'would make it difficult, if not impossible, for transgender and intersex Montanans to participate in public life — to work, attend school, go to the courthouse or the Motor Vehicle Division, or visit a library or state park,' the complaint states, and essentially 'excludes intersex people from these facilities altogether.' The bill, Vannatta wrote, 'is motivated by animus and supported by no evidence that its restrictions advance its purported purpose to protect women's safety and privacy.' But the law, along with another law barring transgender individuals from participating in sports aligning with their gender identity, have been priorities for the Republican majority in the Legislature, as seen by the bills' swift passage through both chambers. HB 121 was one of the first bills heard during the 69th Legislative session, and Gianforte also made it a major point in his State of the State speech in January. Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, R-Savage, said when the bill was signed that the measure represented a 'common sense' victory and showed that 'in Montana, we still believe in biological reality.' Vannatta said the plaintiffs had shown 'at least serious questions going to the merits' of their claims, and that they 'are concretely harmed' by the law's denial of access to facilities that align with their gender identity. The order also states that intersex people, who do not fit the law's definitions of male and female, 'do not know whether they are permitted to use any sex-separated facilities at all.' A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for 1 p.m. on April 21 in the Missoula County Courthouse. Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting Preliminary Injunction Hearing 11 Temporary Restraining Order and Order Setting Preliminary Injunction Hearing (1)
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Alaska House votes to ease new accountants' path to a job
Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, speaks in favor of House Bill 121 on Monday, March 24, 2025 in the Alaska House of Representatives. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) A bill passed without objection by the Alaska House on Monday would make it easier for new accountants to work in the state. House Bill 121 by Reps. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage and Julie Coulombe, R-Anchorage, would replace the current minimum education requirement for certified public accounts in Alaska. Alaska law currently requires new CPAs to have 150 credit-hours of training. If enacted, HB 121 would replace that with 120 hours and two years of experience. The new accountant would still have to pass a CPA licensing test. Coulombe, speaking on the House floor, said the additional 30 credit-hours may amount to another year in college, which can deter young professionals from coming to the state. The bill would also make it easier for out-of-state firms to do business in Alaska by aligning the state's rules with those in other places, said Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, speaking in support of the bill. HB 121 advances to the Senate for consideration. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Hospital price transparency bill dies in Wyoming Senate
CHEYENNE — Tuesday evening, the Wyoming Senate voted to kill House Bill 121, which would have required Wyoming hospitals to post prices for items and services in dollars and cents on their websites. Some opponents of the bill expressed concern that it would harm Wyoming hospitals financially, particularly smaller, rural ones. Others said they opposed the bill in response to the Trump administration's executive order last week, which called for stricter rules and enforcement for hospitals to make prices more publicly accessible, with concerns the bill would make enforcement more confusing. The concern for smaller hospitals stems from what some senators described as additional 'paperwork and red tape' they would be required to handle. In a House committee meeting in February, Wyoming Hospital Association President Eric Boley, who opposed the bill, estimated that implementing this transparency software could cost a facility between $10,000 and $15,000 each year. 'Why do we do these things? When we've got good, successful health care programs, some of them struggling, why do we add this additional obligations when it's something we can do without,' Sen. Dan Dockstader, R-Afton, said. Supporters of the bill, however, said this legislation would have helped the state comply with the federal regulations and given the state more control. Sen. Charles Scott, R-Casper, said that hospitals, no matter the size, will now be required to comply with the transparency rules, regardless of HB 121, due to the executive order. He urged his colleagues to continue to support the legislation, advocating for the advantages of enforcing a federal act on the state level. (PRA) is a health care price transparency advocacy group that has been vocal in its support for bills like HB 121 across the nation. PRA founder and chairwoman Cynthia Fisher issued a statement following the Senate vote Tuesday evening. 'Each of the 16 senators who voted against HB 121 willingly turned their backs on thousands of Wyoming patients and families,' Fisher wrote. 'They had a chance to follow President Trump's lead and take bold action to give every health care consumer in Wyoming access to upfront prices, protection from overcharges, and a more transparent system. Instead, they shamefully betrayed their constituents to placate special interests. These senators put profits over patients. Despite this disappointing setback, the fight for real hospital prices will go on in Wyoming and across our entire country.' Senators narrowly voted to kill the bill, with 16 opposed, 14 in favor and one excused. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Daniel Singh, R-Cheyenne. Rep. Daniel Singh, R-Cheyenne (2025) Rep. Daniel Singh, R-Cheyenne Despite previously voting on this legislation, Sen. Gary Crum, R-Laramie, excused himself Tuesday due to a potential conflict of interest with his role as chairman of the board of directors of Ivinson Memorial Hospital in Laramie. A controversial amendment On Monday, Crum voted in favor of an amendment to the bill to exclude public hospitals from the transparency requirements, which includes Ivinson. The amendment was put forward by Sen. Lynn Hutchings, R-Cheyenne, and also reduced the daily fine for facilities not in compliance from $1,000 to $500. That amendment passed. Senate President Bo Biteman, R-Ranchester, said he believed this amendment defeated the purpose of the bill. 'We're not going to be bankrupting these hospitals. They would be bankrupting themselves by not being in compliance,' he said Monday. 'So it's their choice to follow this act or not.' Sen. Gary Crum addresses Senate Sen. Gary Crum, R-Laramie, addresses the Senate during the first day of the 68th Wyoming Legislature's general session on Jan. 14 at the state Capitol in Cheyenne. Crum spoke in favor of the amendment on Monday, criticizing HB 121 as a 'feel-good bill' as originally written. 'This isn't controlling cost. It's going to add to the confusion, because we've got the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and now you've got a new presidential order coming in, which we don't know exactly what's in that and how that's going to be interpreted,' he said. 'And now we're going to put this (bill) into the mix, and so we're going to make all these rules and put everybody against each other.' The executive order gives health care facilities 90 days to disclose actual prices of items and services, not estimates. It will be enforced by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the federal level. Current transparency Some lawmakers who voted against the bill, including Sen. Bill Landen, R-Casper, and Sen. Wendy Schuler, R-Evanston, said prices are already readily available at their local facilities when they need it. PRA publishes a semi-annual hospital pricing transparency report, which analyzes whether hospitals are in compliance with existing federal price transparency regulations. The report reviewed around 2,000 hospital websites. Published in November 2024, before Trump's executive order, PRA found that only 21.1% (421 hospitals) were compliant, none of which were in Wyoming. Since then, Cheyenne Regional Medical Center has become the only hospital in Wyoming to meet those transparency requirements. Fisher spoke with the WTE on Tuesday before the Senate killed HB 121. She said that greater transparency would lower the overall cost for consumers by allowing them to shop around at different health care facilities to compare the cost of services, ultimately driving costs down across the board. 'It behooves the smaller and rural hospitals to attract patients by having far more competitive prices,' she said. 'And the reality is these hospitals already have to have this data in electronic form in order to bill every single day. So, there's no burden. They already have these prices. All they need to do is pull back the curtain and show them.' Despite the federal executive order, she advocated for the original language of HB 121 to enforce transparency regulations sooner in Wyoming and prevent state law from being in conflict with the executive order by exempting certain institutions from the transparency requirements.
