Latest news with #MontanaPublicAffairsNetwork
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Longtime lawmaker appointed to lead the Montana Hospital Association
Rep. Ed Buttrey speaks about House Bill 60 during the 2025 Montana Legislature. (Photo courtesy of Montana Public Affairs Network). Following a national search, the Montana Hospital Association Board of Trustees today announced that it has appointed F. Edward 'Ed' Buttrey as President and chief executive officer for the Association. Buttrey will begin in the role on July 1. In this role, Buttrey will provide strategic leadership for association activities as well as provide direction to the association's charitable arm, the Montana Health Research and Education Foundation, and for-profit subsidiary, MHA Ventures. 'Ed is uniquely qualified to lead the Montana Hospital Association into its next chapter, thanks to his extensive experience in both healthcare policy and decades leading successful businesses. Ed understands the challenges and opportunities facing healthcare in Montana, the various solutions that can help or hinder them, and how to build and lead successful organizations. He has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to improving the lives of the people and communities he serves, and we believe Montana patients will continue to benefit from his vision and leadership,' said Craig Aasved, MHA Board Chair and CEO of Shodair Children's Hospital in Helena. Buttrey, a graduate of Montana State University, is a business owner and long-serving state legislator from Great Falls. As a lawmaker, he's worked on the state's healthcare policies and future, including improving access and affordability, and was the sponsor of the 2015 Montana Medicaid expansion bill and bills to renew and revise the program in 2019 and during the 2025 session. He has served as a board member on the Benefits Health System (Great Falls) Board of Trustees since 2015. In addition to his legislative work, Buttrey has extensive experience in business, with a focus on real estate, hospitality, technology and manufacturing. He has volunteered with numerous local organizations, including efforts aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, supporting youth programs, and promoting economic development in Great Falls and surrounding areas, according to the press release. 'This is an exciting opportunity to move from crafting policy to driving meaningful change in the healthcare system itself. For more than 14 years, I've worked hard on a variety of healthcare policy issues because I have seen firsthand the importance of healthcare to our neighbors, our communities and our local economies. While the MHA is actively involved in the healthcare policy space, it also supports our state's hospitals by providing quality improvement, safety, workforce development, emergency preparedness and other programs that enhance care in rural and frontier communities. I am deeply committed to applying both my legislative and business experience to build a stronger future for all Montanans who rely on the care our healthcare system provides,' Buttrey said. Buttrey will succeed Robert W. 'Bob' Olsen, who has served in leadership positions for the Association since 1989 and has led the organization as president and CEO since 2022. During the course of his more than 30-year career with the association, Olsen has made significant contributions to federal and state regulatory, policy and advocacy matters. He was awarded the MHA Lifetime Achievement Award in 2022 and the Frederick C. Morgan Individual Achievement Award from the Healthcare Financial Management Association in 2025. 'I've witnessed significant changes in Montana's healthcare system during that time, yet one constant has remained: The need to adapt. Montana patients and healthcare providers will be well served by Ed's innovative approaches, ability to bring together diverse stakeholders, and a longstanding commitment to improving healthcare for our state,' Olsen said.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmaker defends decision to cut arts funding, while spouse's group gets nearly triple its request
Rep. John Fitzpatrick, R-Anaconda, explains his rationale for cutting some cultural and arts organizations' funding while increasing others on Feb. 21, 2025 (Photo via Montana Public Affairs Network). A state representative who called more than a dozen arts and cultural groups 'slackers' and 'no-shows' insists that he has no conflict of interest in the legislation, and therefore didn't need to disclose to fellow lawmakers that his wife was leading the organization that got the largest increase of funds among the 75 groups that applied. The organization, the St. Timothy's Summer Music Festival, stands to get nearly three times as much funding from the state as the group had requested, while Rep. John Fitzpatrick, R-Anaconda, pushed to zero out funding requests from other groups. Fitzpatrick's wife, Connie, is listed on the application from St. Timothy's, and used the same email account as one used by Rep. Fitzpatrick in his capacity as a lawmaker to communicate with the group about the funding process. Fitzpatrick told the Daily Montanan via email on Friday that he isn't affiliated with the organization, and that as a resident of the smaller Deer Lodge County, he knows many of the residents, which could be interpreted as a conflict of interest virtually anytime someone from the Anaconda area shows up to testify at the Legislature. 'I am not affiliated with the festival, and I do not personally benefit from the appropriation,' Fitzpatrick said. In fact, he said that he and his wife are financial supporters of it, actually underwriting part of the festival so that it could meet the minimum requirements to apply for state funding, $5,000. The group is currently slated to received $12,500, 143% more than it had originally requested. But in a fiery legislative meeting in February, dozens of people showed up to protest the way Fitzpatrick had led a budgeting subcommittee dedicated to distributing arts and cultural funding. Groups from around the state said that for years, they had submitted their grant requests, but had not been required to appear before the legislative subcommittee. In fact, many were told that attending the sessions was not mandatory and would not affect funding, according to multiple residents. However, Fitzpatrick said that he expected that groups or individuals representing the organizations would at least attend via remote video conference to advocate for funding. He told fellow lawmakers when those groups 'no-showed,' he and other committee members decided to zero out the budget requests, leaving larger groups like the Charlie M. Russell Museum in Great Falls and the Alberta Bair Theatre in Billings, along with other smaller organizations, with no grant funding. Fitzpatrick also pointed out that many of the organizations were asking for less than $10,000 but had operational budgets of hundreds of thousands or millions. Still, for nearly two hours in February, arts and cultural groups railed against the decision, saying that the change was not clearly articulated by the Montana Arts Council, the coordinating agency for the grants. Employees of the council agreed that they had misunderstood the change as well, and hadn't communicated that testimony was required. During the hearings and subsequent discussion with lawmakers, Fitzpatrick didn't disclose that his wife had submitted an application for a summertime Anaconda music festival, and that the approved funding was more than double what had originally been requested. He told the Daily Montanan that after nearly two dozen groups did not show up, the subcommittee had a decision: Leave money sitting, or put it to work. So the subcommittee, comprised of both Democrats and Republicans, opted to allocate the funds to groups that had attended, giving many, if not all, more money than they requested, including the St. Timothy's Summer Music Festival, whose application was submitted by Connie Fitzpatrick. Rep. Fitzpatrick explained that without her help, the festival was in jeopardy, and she submitted the application to keep it going. He also said that even though additional funds stand to be allocated, a one-to-one funding match requirement means the small musical festival will probably not be able to use more money. Before HB 9 got out of the full House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Democrats were concerned about another aspect, political hardball. Democrats said that they had been told that if the amendments to zero out the funding for some of the groups weren't approved, the entire bill may be killed by the governor or Republican leaders. 'These groups teach children how to dance, how to act, and expose them to music. I served on a school board for six years, and I learned that we ought not punish children for the mistakes adults make,' said Rep. Luke Muszkiewicz, D-Helena. 'The good bill sponsor (Fitzpatrick) has said if the amendment doesn't pass, the whole bill will not.' Five Democrat representatives voted against amending the bill, but after the fight to restore funding failed, the entire House Appropriations Committee passed the amended bill 22-0. During executive action on the bill, Fitzpatrick did not deny that bill could be killed if the committee didn't hold the line on changing the funding. 'I realize it's a difficult vote for many. It's not a difficult vote for me,' Fitzpatrick said. 'Some of these groups are less than one mile away, and they couldn't spend five minutes to pick up a $12,000 check, and they failed to do that. Let's at least take care of the 47 people who had enough pride in their program and enough respect for the legislative process to show up and testify.' Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee said they were forced into a tough situation: Either reject arts and cultural funding and hurt all the groups, or accept the changes made by Fitzpatrick's subcommittee that would help some. In the end, 15 groups had their funding wiped out because they did not show up to the committee. Others had their funding reduced if they only provided written testimony. Those groups that testified — either in person or via video — saw increased funding. In total, 75 groups asked for, and originally received various amounts, mostly between $12,500 and $13,000. After the amendment, however, 15 groups were left with zero dollars, while 10 had their grants reduced to $2,000, a roughly 85% cut. After the amendment, the remaining groups all received an increase in funding to $19,660 to $20,160, a bump of between 55% and 57%. The only group to receive more than that was St. Timothy's festival that Connie Fitzpatrick had submitted. That amount rose from $5,000 to $12,160 — an increase of 143%. During the February meeting, Fitzpatrick said that had any of the organizations showed up and apologized, they may have changed the decision. Rep. Mary Caferro, the top ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said that she didn't know that Fitzpatrick had a connection to any of the organizations. 'We were really concerned. We felt that they had lost funding inappropriately,' she said, 'But we also wanted to support HB 9 because it did provide some projects to get funding at some level.' She said she does not believe anyone on the Democrats' side knew of the connection. 'That's pretty bothersome,' she said. 'I don't remember any disclosing about it.' At least one other Democrat, though, came to Fitzpatrick's defense — Sen. Ellie Boldman of Missoula, who sat on the joint subcommittee that made the decision to zero out some grants, a move that she said she supported, even more after the criticism of Fitzpatrick. Boldman said that in a small state like Montana, lawmakers have close, personal friendships with many who testify before the committees that are never disclosed. Furthermore, she said lawmakers have a responsibility to question every allocation, and they couldn't do that because some groups did not show up. 'The idea that Rep. Fitzpatrick is the chattel of his wife and he must also disclose her unpaid volunteer connections in the community that we all know Rep. Fitzpatrick represents is also absurd,' Boldman said. 'These types of relationships do not rise to any 'conflict of interest' and there is no obligation to disclose, and, in my opinion, the whisper and innuendo is unfair and irresponsible.' HB0009.001.009_Amendments-in-Context_final-full
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Montana House considers bill to put more sideboards on medical assistance in dying
Montana Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras testifies against House Bill 637 on Feb. 26, using her finger to point to her head when discussing the difference between dying by a gunshot and dying by a medical prescription of toxic drugs (Screenshot via Montana Public Affairs Network). Robert Baxter, the man who originally waged a lawsuit in Montana for his right to choose death as he wasted away from cancer, didn't know that the day he died, a district court judge ruled in his favor. But his daughter told lawmakers he would have been comforted to know years later, his grandson, suffering from incurable pancreatic cancer, would use the provisions he helped champion as he was dying. 'My father would have never dreamed that his grandson would have needed and benefitted from this decision,' said Roberta King of Missoula. On Wednesday, in a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee that was full of as much testimony as tears, opponents and supporters of medical aid in dying, sometimes called 'physician-assisted suicide,' discussed House Bill 637, which would codify requirements for physicians to use the process. Currently, the state's official legal position is that suicide — including those who aid or assist others to end their life — is illegal. However, the 'Baxter decision,' as it has been called, made one of the defenses to homicide patient consent. In other words, if taken to court, a medical provider could argue the patient consented to drugs that led to their death as a defense. But, as both opponents and supporters of HB 637, brought by Rep. Julie Darling, R-Helena, said, that leaves physicians and terminally ill patients in a legal gray area that doesn't offer any guidance or 'sideboards' on the process. HB 637 offers a range of steps and requirements that would codify when people could use medical assistance in dying (see sidebar below). Testimony included lengthy testimony from Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras, who spoke of the Gianforte administration's opposition to the bill, offering her own personal story of having grandchildren with the life-shortening disease, cystic fibrosis. Juras said the issue of medical assistance in dying is a public policy that should be discussed by lawmakers, as the Baxter decision said, but she said that suicide is already an epidemic in the Treasure State, and the state's policy should be consistent. Montana, as Juras pointed out, has been in the top five states in suicide per capita for decades. 'I think we'd all agree: Inconsistent policy is bad policy,' Juras said. 'You cannot say that suicide is not appropriate in these situations but allowable in other situations. That is doublespeak. It's confusing. It sends the message that life matters in some instances but not others. Life matters no matter the condition.' Demonstrating the often complex political issue that can't be broken down by party lines, Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, who is also a lawyer and rabbi, said he was truly conflicted on the bill, and wondered how Juras, also an attorney, viewed the proposed legislation in light of the state constitution's right to dignity. 'The thing I'd ask is does human dignity also include the right to ask your friend or your neighbor to pull the trigger when the gun is at their head to assist them in dying,' Juras responded. Testimony from medical professionals ranged from strong support to opposition, representing the way the issue doesn't break down along political party lines. The sponsor of the bill, Darling, admitted that it was probably surprising that a Republican would bring the bill, but after seeing the process first-hand with the death of her younger sister, who died in 2024 due to metastatic breast cancer, she said the issue wasn't partisan, rather a personal 'freedom of choice.' Other Republicans seemed supportive of the measure, wondering if mixing the perennial problem of suicide and medical assistance in dying wasn't a case of an 'apples to oranges' comparison. Require residents who want 'Medical Assistance In Dying' to have a certified condition with a terminal diagnosis. Be within six months of death. Patients must initiate the request themselves. There would be a 48-hour period between meeting with a physician and a prescription for the drugs that would induce death. The patient must have the ability to self-administer. The patient must be 18 years old. Must be concurrently enrolled in hospice. The decision to request medical aid in dying must be witnessed, repeated and recorded. Any witness must not be related to the person. Any witness must not be entitled to any portion of the person's estate. The witness may not be the doctor. The witness may not be affiliated with the facility where the patient resides. The witness may not be a resident of the facility. Dr. Carley Robertson, a physician who works mainly in nursing homes in the northern part of the state, worried that the law would mandate her to write prescriptions that she didn't agree with. Derek Oestreicher, legal counsel for the Montana Family Foundation, said his group opposed the idea because of the role of doctors and the value of human life. 'Doctors should not be killers. Doctors should be healers,' he said. Matt Brower, representing the Montana Catholic Conference, said the two diocese in the state opposed the bill. 'What incentive is there for the state to put resources into hospice or palliative care?' he asked. However, others, including those with a terminal disease, spoke in support. Dan Steffensen has Stage IV lung cancer — giving him six months to live, with a possibility of 18 months with treatment. 'I am seeking treatment,' he said. 'But I know the day will come when I will suffocate. I do not care to do that, nor should I have to. I will make the decision for myself. I do not want lose my options. That's what I need — my options.' David Cooper of Jefferson City who was married for 53 years testified in support of the bill, after watching his wife die of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known as 'Lou Gehrig's Disease.' He said that despite the palliative care offered to her, the medication didn't alleviate her pain and suffering, a theme that medical providers continued to emphasize. Doris Fischer of Sheridan said that her husband died of ALS eight months before the Baxter decision. 'He was not afraid of death, he was scared of the complications,' she said, which includes gradually being unable to breath and suffocating to death. Dr. Colette Kirchhoff, who has been practicing care for terminal patients, said that medical literature is clear: Palliative care, which seeks to comfort and ease the pain and symptoms of some diseases, is only effective in 93% of the cases, leaving some to suffer during the dying process. 'We cannot soothe every symptom,' she said. 'People have terminal suffering because we are lengthening the death process instead of increasing the life process.' Toward the end of the testimony, as lawmakers were asking questions, Kirchhoff addressed the question of patients who chose medical assistance in dying, and how it differed from suicide. 'I think sometimes it's hard to remember how much suffering comes along with chemotherapy, how much suffering comes along with stem cell therapy, how much suffering happens with immunotherapy,' Kirchhoff said. 'They don't want to take any more pills, and they don't want the side effects. They want to live. They're not suicidal, and they would take offense to the idea. They've done everything they can to live and to extend their lives.' Some medical professionals also argued that giving clarification would help ease uncertainty about the practice, which maintains a gray area in law. 'Without guardrails, it's harder, not easier,' said Marika Moore, a certified death midwife. Some proponents, including Darling, who went through the process with her dying younger sister, said that many times, the patients who select medical aid in dying never use the prescribed drugs, rather they want freedom and options. 'In the end, she did not make it to her chosen date of death,' Darling said, noting that her sister died the day before she had selected with family and healthcare providers. 'But I firmly believe Jackie let go that week because of the plan she had set in motion that week. She needed to be in charge at the end. Jackie did not want to die. She would have taken any medication she could have to live. She had two sons and a grandson. Medical assistance in dying isn't a partisan issue, it's a freedom of choice.' Others, like Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, asked about whether advanced life directives often used by hospitals and elderly patients to communicate their wishes at the end of life, including 'do not resuscitate' orders, weren't a similar example of medical practice shaping whether a patient lives or dies. 'That's a great question and there is a huge difference,' Juras said. The hearing often put the lieutenant governor in the defensive position as other lawmakers, some Republican, noted that suicide is often completed by terminal patients with no other means of recovering. 'In those directives, you're prolonging a death that would otherwise end a life, and allowing a death that was imminent so as not to artificially prolong life. That's a lot different than hastening death,' Juras said. The committee took no action on the bill on Wednesday morning.
Yahoo
22-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appropriations committee considers axing funding for some arts and cultural organizations
A room full of residents raise their hands to testify against a proposal to cut funding from different arts and cultural organizations at the Montana Capitol on Feb. 21, 2025 (Screenshot by Montana Public Affairs Network) Calling some arts and culture groups 'slackers' and 'complete no-shows,' Rep. John Fitzpatrick, R-Anaconda, stood firmly on a decision that a joint Montana Appropriations subcommittee made that would strip some state cultural funding from some groups, and give more to others — in some cases more than they may have asked for. However, arts and cultural groups testified during a late Friday afternoon meeting that stretched to near darkness that the process for the funding was not clearly communicated, and in fact, staff with the Montana Arts Council testified that they may have given information that contradicted Fitzpatrick and the rest of the subcommittee based on previous funding cycles. The funding at issue was House Bill 9, which provides small grants, usually less than $20,000, to arts and cultural groups throughout the state. The Montana Arts Council usually manages the organizations and applicants, and presented 75 groups for funding. During testimony, those arts council staff said that funding for the grants was not conditioned upon testifying at the Legislature. However, Fitzpatrick, as the chairman of Joint Subcommittee F, said his group of legislators made the unanimous decision to cut funding from any program that didn't show up to testify, which caught many of the organizations off-guard. Many testified that they had previously received the grants, but that legislative testimony was not required. Representatives of the arts organizations testified that they felt the 'rug had been pulled out from under them,' as those who did not appear before the Legislature had their grants zeroed out, and those who only provided written testimony to the lawmakers had their funding reduced. Fitzpatrick said repeatedly that he refused to apologize for guarding the tax dollars of Montana, and refused to concede funding authority to the Montana Arts Council. 'They're victims, I agree,' Fitzpatrick said. 'They're victims of their own decision making. It might be laziness — I don't know. It might be arrogance. It might be fiscal incompetence, but everybody had an excuse. The only one we didn't hear is, 'Grandma died.' I'm tired of excuses. They're running a business and they can't even take five minutes for a 'give-me' check? 'I wish one applicant here or on Zoom today would have said that they made a mistake and they were accepting responsibility for their actions. I would have personally taken back the amendment and written them a $500 check to support their organization.' He said that he was offended that he had scheduled every one of the arts organizations for time with the committee and that they had decided it wasn't worth it; so, Fitzpatrick said it's not worth the state's money. In closing remarks, Fitzpatrick read a list of organizations, including groups like the Alberta Bair Theater in Billings or the Charles M. Russell Museum in Great Falls, each with more than 10 staff positions and each with budgets more than $1 million. He told his fellow lawmakers that not getting funding wouldn't hurt their budgets. 'We should reward the people that tried and dismiss the people who didn't,' Fitzpatrick said. As the amended House Bill 9 stands currently, 47 organizations will receive funding, 10 had their funding reduced because of written testimony and 17 others, including the Bair Theater, Grant Street Theater and C.M. Russell Museum had their requests zeroed. 'The minute we drop $10,000, though, they have all the time to text, phone, lobby us in the hall and get to this hearing today,' Fitzpatrick said. No person testified on behalf of the bill, although many expressed gratitude for supporting arts. It put some of the arts and cultural organizations that had received funding, in some cases more funding, in the rare position of advocating against the amended version, requesting to restore the previous version where 75 organizations were given funding. '(Our organization) would benefit, but I oppose this because it hurts the overall arts community,' said Emily Wolfram of the Montana Performing Arts Consortium. Benji Cosgrove, the executive director of the Myrna Loy in Helena, said the debate about arts and culture in Montana is larger than any one of the 75 groups. 'This puts me in the odd position,' he said. 'We need to spread it to the other. The health of the arts industry statewide is more important than any one organization.' Christina Barbachano, the executive director of the Holter Museum in Helena, testified that her organization stood to gain more from the changes the subcommittee had made, but she had a different analogy. 'I am a big fan of the arts, and I am a big fan of sports and one of the fundamental rules in any sport is that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game,' she said. 'And this is changing the rules in the middle of the game.' One group, the Western Heritage Center in Billings, said it did not testify because of the sudden death of it executive director. Still another group, the Emerson Center, which serves southwestern Montana, said it intentionally made the decision not to participate so other groups could be heard. 'We believed we were saving time by allowing other organizations to have their voices heard,' said Susan Denson-Guy. 'If we would have known it would be reduced if we provided written testimony or eliminated, we would have testified.' Multiple people testified that the history of the fund, and the feedback they were given was completely contradictory to what Fitzpatrick and the rest of the committee wanted. 'This was a terrible misunderstanding in the process,' said John Rausch, a board member of Grant Street Theater in Helena. 'We did not know that our presence was actually required. We're were told it was not a requirement.' He said that any one of the organizations would have appeared had they known it was part of the process, but it hasn't been recently, and few were sure how long it had been, if ever. 'There would have been 75 happy people who would drive all across the state for grants, but that doesn't seem like a very effective or efficient process,' Rausch said. Instead, the organizations said they submitted their proposals through the Montana Arts Council, which helped organize them. However, Fitzpatrick also pushed back on that idea, saying the council was not responsible for funding, the lawmakers were. He said that someone representing the organizations could have attended remotely for three to five minute for a check that usually ranged around $12,000. 'Seventeen groups couldn't bother to take the time to do it. It's ridiculous. When cash is available, it's a slam dunk,' Fitzpatrick said, noting that the committee, comprised of Democrats and Republicans, agreed to the amendment unanimously that would re-arrange the funding. Tanya Call, the founder and director of Cohesion Dance Project in Helena, testified that her group, which supports adaptive dance for persons with disabilities, has previously received grant funding. However, she said it was not previously required, and wondered how groups would have known. 'It's a no-brainer. You show up for five minutes and you get a $12,000 check,' Fitzpatrick said. 'We didn't change the rules, we applied the rules. If it's not that important to you, it's not that important to us.' Fitzpatrick said he scheduled time before the committee, beginning on the second day of the legislative session. He levied some of the blame at the Montana Arts Council, which earlier in the meeting confirmed it had told organizations they were not required to attend and one staff member apologized, while in tears. 'What I find offensive is that we've totally destroyed the idea of merit,' Fitzpatrick said. 'With this set of amendments, we're saying it's time to get our legislative authority back. There's nothing that says we have to fund everybody because the Montana Arts Council put them in the bill.'
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘Personhood' bill moves to Montana House Floor
Montana Rep. Lee Deming speaks to the House Judiciary Committee about a proposed amendment to the Montana Constitution which would define personhood from the moment of conception (Photo screeshot Montana Public Affairs Network). Just a little more than 90 days ago, Montana voters soundly approved a state constitutional amendment that enshrined the right to an abortion in state law. A bill championed by Montana House Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, would essentially put the question again to voters in 2026, and many opponents told lawmakers they worried this new 'fetal personhood' bill would go further than any other legislation in the country — and nullify Constitutional Initiative 128. House Bill 316 would require two-thirds of the Legislature's support in order to place the question before Montana residents. The bill would ask Montanans if they support a 'personhood' amendment, which would confer rights to an embryo upon conception, essentially ruling out the use of in vitro fertilization or other methods without risking criminal penalties. Others who testified at the House Judiciary Committee's legislation last Wednesday also worried that the broad and vague language could wreak havoc because of unintended consequences, including end-of-life decisions, known as 'advance care directives.' In November 2024, Montana voters approved CI-128 by more than a 58% margin, which enshrines the constitutional right to an abortion and privacy in medical decisions. Abortion had been legal in Montana, supported by a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that found that Montanans' right to an abortion is tied to the constitutional right to privacy in the Montana Constitution. However, CI-128 now guarantees the right to an abortion as a stand-alone right. HB 316 was approved in committee along party lines, 12-to-8, and now heads to the full Montana House floor. Deming acknowledged that Montanans recently approved CI-128, but likely didn't understand that it would protect late-term abortions, something that Montana medical providers said do not happen in the state, and rarely happen, overwhelmingly because of medical complications. He also told fellow lawmakers that if the thousands of abortions performed in the state had been illegal, maybe CI-128 wouldn't have passed. 'If an amendment can take rights away — and this is a hypothetical, so please bear with me — why not use a bullet to kill all those people 70 or older? After all, they're generally a drain on their families and society and some are inconvenient to have around. I see no material difference between that hypothetical and the thousands of abortions performed in Montana,' Deming said. Through the testimony, many lawmakers and residents testified that the legislation would also mean halting IVF. 'My heart breaks for those who cannot conceive naturally,' Deming said. 'If there was a way to accomplish it without killing so many human beings, but I don't have the solution.' Much of the testimony surround HB 316 fell along the debate lines of CI-128. 'Conception is not a theoretical or philosophical,' said Derek Oestreicher of the Montana Family Foundation. 'It's a scientifically verifiable event that begins at conception.' Dr. Annie Bukacek, a medical professional who also sits on the Montana Public Service Commission, spoke in favor of the bill, and said it was right to target IVF. 'IVF is where untold human lives are destroyed to bring about one life, with enormous cash profits for individual clinics,' she said. Resident Dick Pence testified that human species were the only animals who appear to do something other than protect their young. 'What other female animal on the plant wouldn't give their life to protect their young? This is not true for the women who claim it is their right to choose,' Pence said. 'The self-centeredness of those women.' Ann Angus of Bozeman testified that she is expecting a child in June, thanks to IVF, and asked lawmakers to stop HB 316. 'I've always wanted kids, and I am pregnant thanks to IVF,' she said. Residents also voiced concerns about some of the 'unintended consequences' of the bill, including patients who developed complications or started to miscarry — or the medical providers who would have to attend to them. Some worried that, like in states that had passed similar legislation, Montana would lose medical providers. A shortage of medical providers is a perennial problem in the rural state. Others worried that language in the bill that talked about 'any stage of life' or condition would place advance directives, often used by older patients, many with terminal conditions, at risk. HB 316 also offers no 'carve-outs' or protections in cases of rape or incest. 'It will drive healthcare providers out of state,' said Amber Nichols, who testified as a resident and scientist. 'It will disregard the majority of voters have time and time again supported access to abortion in our state. It will signal to daughters, nieces, sisters, friends and neighbors that healthcare decisions are not theirs alone.' Ella Smith, who spoke on behalf of Blue Mountain Clinic, one of the state's healthcare providers that has managed abortions, said that 'personhood' bills like Deming's are no longer theoretical about consequences for healthcare providers. 'Doctors are being criminalized by not providing care in life-threatening situations,' she said. She said that pregnancies can become emergencies quickly, but some providers have been unwilling to intervene until later, risking complications and even a death of a patient. 'We don't have to guess what happens when laws like this exist — the evidence is all around us,' Smith said. 'The sponsors of this legislation ignore the severe harm which they inflict. Women have died because they lived in a state with comparable laws to HB 316 exist.' Elizabeth Brenneman from the Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said she worried about pregnant women being criminalized under this law for using drugs or not seeking medical attention. Other opponents pointed out that a similar measure to get the initiative before voters has failed three times during the signature-gathering process, as well as seven times at the Legislature. Keegan Nashan of Livingston said she drove to places like Billings, Wibaux and even the Miles City Bucking Horse sale to gather signatures for CI-128. She said that while not all Montanans agreed with abortion, she kept on hearing the message over and over again. 'Ultimately, what is absolutely certain is that Montanans don't think it's any of the government's business,' she said. Robin Turner, the staff attorney at Legal Voice, said that beyond the challenges of abortion, IVF and healthcare access, she said the bill is problematic from a legal standpoint. 'It puts the pregnant person at odds with the fetus and diminishes the right of the pregnant person,' she said. She told committee members that it's unclear who gets to assert the rights of the fetus. Could an abusive spouse, grandparents, Child Protective Services or the police invoke the rights, she wondered. 'This would mean there's no end to what the state can or can't do,' Turner said. 'Women deserve the final say in what they can do with their bodies and medical care.' Martha Fuller, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana, urged lawmakers to consider the fear such a law will create for pregnant women. She said women may delay seeking medical care, especially if they think they'll be blamed for problems or accused of 'self-managed abortions.' 'Anyone who has been pregnant knows there's a long, often conflicting list of things that you should or shouldn't do,' she said. Fuller said that meanwhile, providers may be reluctant to act, for fear of being criminalized for doing the wrong thing. 'Actions often need to be taken quickly so the chilling effect of people seeking care for pregnancies they wanted and intended to keep could keep them from addressing complications and could be chilling or dangerous,' Fuller said. While the topic of the bill was 'personhood' and centered on pregnant women and fetuses, it often veered into other weighty topics, from slavery to theology. Oestreicher said that before the Civil War, slaves were also not given personhood rights, and this bill would continue to guarantee that all people were afforded equal protection. Rep. SJ Howell, D-Missoula, asked questions of Deming, especially how could the rights of the mother and the rights of the child be separated. For example, Howell questioned if a woman incarcerated for theft could use pregnancy as a means to escape criminal punishment because the food or care in prison or jail was inadequate. 'I'm concerned about how we really address full personhood,' Howell said. 'How do we follow the law?' Deming replied that his interest was in protecting life from conception to natural death. 'It would be two people under the bill, they just occupy the same space,' Deming said. Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, who is both a trained rabbi and attorney, wondered if HB 316 stepped on his religious rights, because of differences centering on when the soul enters the body. 'Why should we enshrine your religious beliefs and exclude mine?' Stafman asked Deming. 'I didn't mention religious rights,' Deming said. 'I'm making a legal argument. I didn't bring up religion. You were the one who brought that up.' 'Legally, then, when does the soul enter the body? Can you give me a legal argument?' he asked Deming. 'I think that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter when the soul enters the body. Of course it matters to you, and I as far as this goes. It's not in the bill. It wasn't brought up. It has nothing to do with this bill,' Deming replied. Stafman took a different line of questioning. 'Twenty percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage. And if you're saying that life begins at conception, and if 20% of them end in miscarriage, doesn't that make God a mass murderer?' Stafman asked. 'I have to say that I object to that question,' Deming said. 'And, no.'
