Montana: Right to Privacy More Important Than Life?

 

This guest post is from Alexis Maddy, Regent Law Family Law student:

Many states' laws surrounding abortion were drastically affected by the Dobbs decision. As a result, more pro-life-friendly laws were passed than ever before. Unfortunately, Montana was not one of those states. Armstrong v. State (1999) was the landmark decision that governs abortion laws in Montana today. There, the court held that the Montana Constitution's right of privacy "guarantees each individual the right to make medical judgments affecting her or his bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen healthcare provider free from the interference of the government.” (Armstrong v. State, 296 Mont. 361, 1999 MT 261, 989 P.2d 364 (Mont. 1999).) This includes abortions and medical decisions. Dobbs, unfortunately, drove the abortion rate up in Montana as people from more restrictive states fled there to take advantage of the lower thresholds.

Montana citizens are actively advocating for the protection of the unborn by proposing bills to the pro-life Governor, Greg Gianforte, to effect change. Just before the Dobbs decision in 2021, several House bills were introduced with the aim of safeguarding life. These bills sought to sway the court to reconsider Armstrong and amend the current abortion laws in Montana. House Bill 136 would have prohibited the abortion of an unborn child capable of feeling pain starting at 20 weeks. House Bill 140 would have required that women be afforded the opportunity to view an ultrasound and listen to the fetal heart tone. House Bill 171 would have restricted certain abortion medications prescribed by telehealth. These three bills were signed into law by Governor Gianforte in 2021, but on February 29, 2024, District Court Judge Krueger, using Armstrong reasoning, ruled these as too restrictive, saying, “It is not up to legislators to substitute their personal values and beliefs for the collective professional judgment and expertise of properly licensed medical providers.” He found them unconstitutional and struck them down.

 

While the Dobbs decision was a massive win for most pro-life organizations and states, Armstrong v. State continues to impact Montana legislation as the controlling law that prioritizes privacy rights over the right to life for the unborn. But there is hope. With the rejection of these three bills, the State can now appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Montana and revisit the Armstrong decision in light of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Family restoration is possible.