Montana defends pro-life laws, also calls on state Supreme Court to overturn right to privacy in the state constitution which was “invented from whole cloth”

By Dave Andrusko

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is asking the state Supreme Court to vacate District Court Judge Michael Moses’ order that blocks the enforcement of three state laws that protect the health and safety of women who are considering or seeking an abortion. “Montana’s attorney general is also asking the state Supreme Court to overturn a 1999 opinion that found the state constitution’s right to privacy guarantees a woman’s access to an abortion — the opinion Planned Parenthood is using to challenge three new abortion laws,” the Associated Press’ Amy Beth Hanson reported.

House Bill 136—the Montana Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act–bans abortions performed on pain-capable unborn children who are 20 weeks gestational age. House Bill 140 offers the opportunity for abortion-minded women to view an ultrasound of their unborn child. HB171 requires informed consent for a woman undergoing chemical (or “medication”) abortions and have an in-person visit. It also prohibits women from accessing medication abortion through the mail and through telehealth.

In an amicus brief filed by AG Knudson, he wrote that “The lower court bungled the preliminary injunction standard, wrongly subjected each of the new laws to ‘strict scrutiny,’ and manifestly abused its discretion by failing to properly consider and assess the State’s evidence and arguments – each on its own justifying a Supreme Court reversal.”

In its brief, the State of Montana arguedAll three laws unquestionably enhance the health and safety of Montana women. And they represent basic regulations of the practice of medicine—bread-and-butter exercises of [state government].But Planned Parenthood’s business is abortion, and these laws require modest changes to its business practices. So Plaintiffs asked the courts to do what they couldn’t through the legislative process—save them the trouble of providing better care to Montana women.”

In the Armstrong decision, handed down in 1999, “Justice James C. Nelson said the constitutional right to privacy led to a right to personal autonomy that included the right to make medical judgments affecting bodily integrity and a woman’s right to obtain a pre-viability abortion, the brief states,” according to Hanson.

The state of Montana countered “In reversing the district court’s order, the state Supreme Court should also overrule the 1999 Armstrong precedent. This decision invented from whole cloth a state constitutional right to elective abortion even though the framers of the Montana Constitution were perfectly clear that decisions about abortion policy are to be firmly in the hands of the Legislature.”

Recent Posts

Facts 37 & 38 of 40 Weeks 40 Facts

Weeks 37 & 38: The baby is about the size of a honeydew melon at… Read More

15 hours ago

PA Republican Senate primary too close to call, likely to go to recount

By Maria V. Gallagher, Legislative/PAC Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation The eyes of the nation have… Read More

15 hours ago

Largely euphemism-free, story bluntly writes about “other options” if Roe is overturned

By Dave Andrusko When discussing chemically-induced abortions, ordinarily pro-abortionist bask in euphemisms—“medication abortion” and “procedural… Read More

16 hours ago

A thought-provoking counter-cultural option 

A French order of nuns for women with Down syndrome  By Chiara Bertoglio  If you… Read More

16 hours ago

Unborn children aren’t constructed—they develop

By Paul Stark, Communications Director, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life In one Seinfeld episode, the… Read More

17 hours ago