Latest news with #HB609
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Montana House tables ‘abortion travel' bill that would have criminalized medical travel
Photo illustration by Getty Images. Just four months ago, Montanans overwhelmingly supported a state constitutional amendment that enshrined the right to an abortion in Montana's foundational document. Even though voters seemed to decisively settle the issue, that has not stopped some lawmakers from proposing more restrictions on the medical procedure. It did not stop the Montana House Judiciary Committee from overwhelmingly tabling a bill to prohibit some pregnant women from traveling for an abortion on Thursday, by a 16-to-4 margin, after emotional testimony on Tuesday and concerns ranging from domestic violence to criminalizing doctors and violating the federal Constitution's right to travel. House Bill 609 would have made it a criminal act a criminal act for Montanans to travel out of state for an abortion without a doctor's recommendation, if the fetus was 'viable.' Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings, who is sponsoring the measure tried to reassure fellow lawmakers that her bill was tailored narrowly so that it only would be applicable if the pregnancy was beyond 24 weeks, often considered the point of fetal viability, and only if a doctor didn't determine abortion was medically necessary. While supporters of the bill were pilloried for 'treating women as property,' Seekins-Crowe pushed back and said she will not make apologies for standing up for the unborn. 'There are some Montanans whose voices are not being heard and that's what I want you to hear,' Seekins-Crowe said. 'I want you to hear my passion for those Montanans who could have never chosen to vote for CI-128 (which codified abortion as a right in the state's constitution), or not vote. They will never drive, or play basketball. They will never see the marvelous Montana sunsets or sunrises. While I do respect women who have life-threatening conditions, that is truly not what this bill is about.' She gave her own example of a pregnancy she had where the child was not expected to survive. 'He is now a 32-year-old man and a father,' she said. 'Those are the ones I am standing up for and if I am called an extremist because I speak for those who don't have a voice, then I will accept that.' HB 609 would have made Montana an oddity: A place where abortion was protected by the state's Constitution, and yet state law would have among the strictest travel laws in the nation, where any person who traveled out of state for an abortion when the fetus is viable, open to possible criminal prosecution, as well as anyone who aids or helps them travel. Similar bills proposed in other states are often call 'abortion travel,' but supporters of Seekins-Crowe's proposal called it 'abortion tourism,' a term which others derided. Anyone who helped a pregnant woman travel for an abortion could have also be found guilty, and those guilty of violating HB 609 could have faced as long as 40 years in prison. 'Montana women and their unborn children deserve better than an abortion industry that prioritizes profit over protection, secrecy over safety and convenience over care,' Seekins-Crowe said at the beginning of her testimony. She said the measure was necessary because she feared for young women who would be taken out of state to have an abortion, without parental consent or support. 'Abortion may be legal, but that doesn't mean we allow an unchecked abortion industry to operate in the shadows,' she said. Only two proponents, including the Montana Family Foundation, spoke in favor of the bill. Medical providers and professionals pushed back on the measure, reporting that less than 1% of third-trimester abortions end in abortion, and the vast majority of those are because of medical conditions or problems that arise during the pregnancy. During an hour-long hearing in front of the Montana House Judiciary Tuesday, opponents of the measure told harrowing stories of wanted pregnancies gone wrong, medical complications, and fear of criminalization. Tearful testimony and intimate medical details were used as examples and pleas to lawmakers to stop HB 609. On Thursday, only four Republicans remained supporting the bill: Lee Deming of Laurel, Jedediah Hinkle of Belgrade, Caleb Hinkle of Belgrade, and chairwoman Amy Regier of Kalispell. Ann Angus of Bozeman told about a pregnancy in 2022 where the child she was carrying 'was not compatible' with life. Because she was 24 weeks along, she had to travel out-of-state to end the pregnancy that would have ended with death or possibly life-threatening complications. 'I wouldn't be a grieving mother, I'd be a felon,' she said. Matt Ferrell of Helena worried that the enforcement mechanism would encourage neighbors to spy on neighbors and report them to authorities, something he said was decidedly not in line with the character of the state. Hailey McKnight told the committee that she is at a high risk for miscarriage, and doesn't want to take the risk if HB 609 becomes law. 'If I sought medical care, I could come home as a felon,' she said. 'I would love to have kids in Montana, but I am so afraid to have kids in Montana.' Tess Fields of Blue Mountain Clinic, one of the providers in the state that provides abortion care described the proposal as 'dangerous, draconian and degrading.' She reminded the lawmakers that in 2021 when she testified that some states would continue to restrict access to birth control, ban travel and not make exceptions for cases of rape or incest that people laughed at her, only to watch many of those same things happen. 'How many women need to die,' she asked, challenging the lawmakers that if HB 619 passed, it will lead to the same types of court challenges which have been a part of Montana courts for years. 'We will see you in court,' she said. Jean Branscum, the Executive Director of the Montana Medical Association, which represents the state's healthcare providers, said that her organization is concerned because of the potential to criminalize doctors by simply giving advice. 'Doctors need to have open and transparent communication for all matters,' she said. She said that by recommending some patients leave the state for care, they could risk becoming 'traffickers.' 'I don't think this will help recruit or retain physicians in our state,' Branscum said. A similar concern was raised by the Montana Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. Beth Brenneman said that her organization, spread throughout the state, often is called upon to take victims of violence to the hospitals or for medical care. That could include victims who have been raped. She said that domestic violence is 2.5 times more likely when the woman is pregnant. 'We don't ask, but we don't know when some of our people if they're pregnant,' she said. 'We bring people to medical care when they need it most. We suspect you want us to continue to provide those services, so please don't make us felons.' Katherine Harmon, a nurse in Billings, had a daughter who was having complications with pregnancy, and lives in the state, but the nearby medical facilities are in North Dakota. She said healthcare providers there refused to deal with it because of the strict prohibitions on abortion. Harmon scheduled an appointment in Billings, and about a week later, her daughter started the journey to state's largest medical corridor in Billings, only to suffer complications and a miscarriage. 'In a rest stop, she bled and completed her miscarriage,' Harmon said. 'And all I felt was rage.' Sarah Kries received news that devastated her during her first pregnancy. Tests after the 20th week revealed a rare condition in which her child would be born, but not able to live, gasping for air until the infant died. 'I made the decision to have my child die with me, her mother rather than gasping for air,' Kries said. She and her husband traveled to Portland where the procedure could be completed, and she went through abortion-clinic protestors who taunted her. 'That was devastating and traumatizing but to be criminalized would have been unfathomable,' said the mother of two living daughters. Sophie Moon, a Mont-PIRG member who represents college-age students and lives in Missoula, brought up concerns about HB 609 criminalizing families. She told the committee that if a parent of a student who isn't from Montana comes to get them to take them home for medical care and an abortion, the parent could be considered trafficking the child under the law. 'It would directly negate parental rights,' she said. Lydia Trom, a mother of three adult children who lives in Bozeman said she was standing up for women and families. 'I value our reproductive rights and the attempt to label our citizens and women as criminals is not OK,' she said. She said that she was traveling out of state when she experienced a miscarriage. 'If this bill was legal at the time and I was further along, I would have been considered a felon,' she said. Dennis Webber of Missoula said that he had concerns about the bill violating the U.S. Constitution. 'The Dobbs decision made abortion a state's issue, but Montana stops at the state line. And Montana cannot stop another state from banning late-term abortions and Montana cannot stop a Montana resident from traveling, or using that state's law when they cross the border there,' he said. 'This takes an already painful choice and makes it more isolating, traumatic and cruel. If the goal is to reduce abortion, this isn't the answer. We need comprehensive sex ed., access to contraception, affordable healthcare and the support of survivors for abuse.'
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Montana 'Abortion Trafficking' Bill Could Criminalize Crossing State Lines for an Abortion
A new Montana bill "establishing the criminal offense of abortion trafficking" could criminalize pregnant women who cross state lines to get an abortion. Under House Bill 609, from state Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe (R–Billings), anyone convicted of "abortion trafficking" would face up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The bill defines abortion trafficking as purposely or knowingly transporting "an unborn child that is currently located in this state either to a location within this state or to a location outside of this state with the intent to obtain an abortion that is illegal in this state." Aiding or assisting someone else in such transportation would also make one guilty of abortion trafficking. Criminalizing driving someone else out of Montana to do something that's legal in another state is itself ridiculous. But the language of this bill would very clearly criminalize some pregnant women who transport themselves out of state too. Per a constitutional amendment voters passed in 2024, Montana allows abortion up until fetal viability and provides an exception to this limit if the mother's life or health is at risk. This fact may give pause to people who think that's an acceptable limit—after all, it's only criminalizing folks who are getting the bad kind of abortions, right? Look, I don't love the idea of late-term abortions either. But let's step back here for a moment. First, there are what many would consider justifiable reasons for getting an abortion after about 24 weeks, including fatal fetal conditions that aren't discovered until later in a pregnancy. "Had a bill like this been law at the time, I wouldn't just be a grieving mother, I'd be a felon," Anne Angus told Jessica Valenti of Abortion, Every Day: The 35-year-old left Montana for an abortion in 2022, after her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition. She was 24 weeks pregnant—which was past the legal abortion window at the time. Under HB 609, she could have faced years in prison. "All for fleeing the state to give my son the compassion and dignity he deserved," she says. What's more, you needn't cheer on unconstitutional, travel-limiting measures like this just because they might stop a few abortions that don't meet your moral standards. There are other solutions—like pushing for changes to laws in states with no limits—that could address abortion-after-viability concerns without implicating other rights. It's also possible that Montana voters will someday topple the recent constitutional amendment and the state will ban abortion much earlier in pregnancy or ban it entirely. In that case, a woman leaving the state for a first-trimester abortion could still be found guilty of abortion trafficking. Perhaps most importantly, we should keep in mind that this is unlikely to stop with Montana. In fact, it's possible that Montana is seen by some as the perfect test ground for this sort of thing precisely because it currently allows abortions until viability. "By starting in a state where abortion is legal until 'viability,' it gives Republicans a certain amount of PR cover. They can pretend this isn't about restricting women's right to travel—just about stopping 'late' abortion," suggests Valenti. "It's no accident that HB 609 targets later abortion patients… just like it's no coincidence that earlier 'trafficking' laws focused on teens." That's just speculation, of course. But it wouldn't surprise me if backers of abortion trafficking laws like Montana's H.B. 609 may be counting on people to let this one slide, since it would only implicate post-viability abortions (for now). Meanwhile, they get to test out messaging and legal arguments before moving on to a state where abortion is banned earlier or entirely. For now, H.B. 609 has been referred to the Montana House Judiciary Committee and had an initial hearing this morning. Whatever happens with this bill, it surely won't be the last we'll hear about abortion trafficking, a term Republicans have begun to use and favor more frequently in recent years. It's a handy framing trick. Calling something "abortion trafficking" sounds a lot more nefarious than "driving out of state for an abortion." The latter implicates Americans' right to freedom of movement and might give some moderate people pause. But trafficking means to deal or trade in something illegal and is used in other criminal statutes (drug trafficking, sex trafficking, labor trafficking). For those not paying close attention, abortion trafficking may seem to mean something worse than it does. And even for those who know the definition, it may unconsciously prime expectations of shiftiness and criminality, even when it's being used to refer to someone who leaves the state to get a legal abortion somewhere else. This is a well-worn strategy. As Mistress Matisse pointed out on X, "They tested 'self-trafficking' charges on sex workers first." Sex workers have sometimes been charged with "sex trafficking" themselves. In addition, sex work customers or prospective customers are sometimes described as sex traffickers and charged with sex trafficking. Because sex trafficking can also refer to terrible crimes, like forcing someone else to sell sex, the term is a muddled mess that allows authorities to invoke evil criminals and heroic rescues when what they're doing is arresting people for trying to have consensual sex. Some Republicans seem intent on pulling a similar trick with abortion trafficking. The term is being defined differently in the various states that have considered abortion trafficking legislation. In Idaho and Tennessee, abortion trafficking laws ban helping a minor get an out-of-state abortion. Regardless of precise definition, invoking trafficking suggests some sort of coercion—a girl or woman being ferried across state lines for an abortion against her will—or the involvement of a black-market abortionist, when the reality is usually people taking advantage of freedom of movement and federalism in order to have abortions. Anti-drag bills in Idaho and Iowa: A bill in Iowa would make it a felony to bring a minor to a drag show. "The legislation, House Study Bill 158, moved out of an Iowa House subcommittee, where lawmakers said they expect changes to the bill," according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch. "Under the current proposal, any adult person who knowingly brings a minor to a drag performance at a business can be charged with a class D felony. The owner or manager of an establishment who knowingly allows minors to attend drag shows could also be charged with a class D felony, and businesses could be fined $10,000 under the bill." Meanwhile, in Idaho, an anti-drag bill just passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor. "House Bill 230, sponsored by Rep. Ted Hill, R-Eagle, would require event hosts and organizers to verify people's age to attend public performances that are considered 'indecent sexual exhibitions,' using the same indecency standard used by the Federal Communications Commission to determine whether content is appropriate for daytime television," and minors illegally exposed to so-called indecent performances could sue, reports the Idaho Capital Sun. "While the bill does not explicitly say the words 'drag shows,' the [Idahoa Family Policy Center] said the legislation was inspired by drag shows held in public parks in Coeur d'Alene and Boise." Abortion-as-homicide bills flounder…and proliferate: A bill from Dusty Deevers—Oklahoma state senator, Christian nationalist, anti-porn crusader—that would have made women who get abortions punishable under homicide laws failed to pass out of the state Senate judiciary committee. Six members of the committee voted no, while just two voted in favor. Likewise, a North Dakota measure that would have made abortion punishable under homicide laws failed to pass out of the state's House of Representatives, with 77 nays to just 16 yays. But similar bills in Indiana and South Carolina have yet to receive votes. Meanwhile, other states—like Kentucky, most recently—have started introducing legislation to punish abortion under homicide statutes. Such proposals have also been introduced in Idaho and Texas. Content moderation is not an antitrust issue: New Federal Trade Commission efforts "indicate that, once again, the connection between antitrust and concerns about content moderation may be under consideration," notes Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute. "Yet this misunderstands the appropriate use of antitrust enforcement, the likely outcomes for content moderation under such enforcement, and the ways the current liability protection of Section 230 actually encourages competition in content moderation." Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum's take? FTC head Andrew Ferguson "is flexing his regulatory powers in a way that undermines freedom of speech by meddling in private editorial choices." Ferguson said this is about stopping "unfair and deceptive practices," but the FTC has no business trying to make social media "fair," Sullum suggests: In practice, ensuring "fair" treatment of users means overriding editorial decisions that the FTC deems opaque, unreasonable, inconsistent, or discriminatory. The challenge of making sure that social media are "fair and balanced" is illustrated by a 2004 FTC complaint against Fox News. Two left-leaning advocacy groups claimed the news outlet's use of that slogan amounted to deceptive advertising. Assessing that complaint, then-FTC Chairman Timothy Muris noted, would require "evaluating the content" of the channel's news coverage—a probe foreclosed by the First Amendment. Sullum further notes that conservatives should be wary of ideas like this because "if the FTC can second-guess editorial judgments to achieve what a Republican majority thinks is the right mix of opinions, a future commission controlled by Democrats can enforce a different agenda." The post Montana 'Abortion Trafficking' Bill Could Criminalize Crossing State Lines for an Abortion appeared first on
