Montana’s Supreme Court has upheld the temporary block on legislation that restricts access to abortion, while litigation unfolds in lower courts.
Four house bills and an administrative rule concerning abortion access, passed in 2023, were placed under a temporary injunction by Judge Mike Menahan of the First Judicial District Court in Helena, as litigation over their constitutionality continues.
The state argued that the District Court abused its discretion by issuing an injunction, but the state Supreme Court disagreed in both cases.
In two separate Oct. 9 court opinions, delivered by Supreme Court Justice Ingrid Gustafson, the court ruled Menahan was correct in issuing the injunction.
In the first case, Planned Parenthood of Montana and a physician challenged House Bill 721 which sought to prohibit dilation and evacuation abortions and impose criminal penalties on providers who perform them. They also challenged House Bill 575 which prohibited an abortion of any viable fetus unless to save the life of the pregnant woman, by requiring an ultrasound that is reviewed by a doctor before the procedure could continue.
Gustafson said that HB 575 implicates the right to privacy protected by the U.S. Constitution and “burdens patients by requiring them to undergo the time and expense of a medically unnecessary procedure and forces an in-person visit on a procedure which has safely been done via telehealth for years.”
In the second case, Planned Parenthood, and several healthcare clinics and professionals, challenged the legality of restricting abortion services for Medicaid patients.
In 2023, the agency in charge of the state’s Medicaid program, Montana’s Department of Public Health and Human Services, adopted a rule barring abortion coverage provided by healthcare workers other than physicians.
As with the rule, the other two bills in contention, House Bill 544 and House Bill 862 imposed further restrictions on Medicaid coverage for abortions. HB 862 limited the use of public funds for abortion procedures unless the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest, or endangers the patient’s life.
Justice Jim Rice dissented.
“[T]he District Court failed to apply the presumption of constitutionality of the challenged bills; did not credit our precedent that there is no fundamental right to receive Medicaid benefits and recognize that there is no concomitant constitutional right to public funding of a private choice,” Rice wrote. “I do not believe, for the preceding reasons and consistent with the above-cited authority, that the Plaintiffs have carried their burden to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits. I would reverse the preliminary injunction.”
“I believe all life is precious and must be protected. I am deeply disappointed in the Court’s ruling,” Gianforte said. “Justice Rice is right in his dissent: the Court ignored its own precedent, and there is no constitutional right to public funding of a private choice.”
“We are relieved that these medically unnecessary restrictions will not be a barrier for Montanans trying to access reproductive health care,” the groups said. “Politicians have no place in exam rooms and we are determined to defend Montanans’ right to privacy – we trust patients to make their own decisions about their own lives.”
Montana Attorney General spokesperson Emilee Cantrell said her office will present its entire argument when the cases proceed to trial in Helena’s District Court.
