How Did Montana Restrict Abortions Without Banning Them Completely?

 The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the right to live. According to Mary Margaret Olohan and Samantha Aschieris at The Daily Signal, the Montana legislature has been busy passing pro-life legislation, and Republican Governor Greg Gianforte has been happy to sign them into law.

            In their article, the authors reported that on Wednesday, Gianforte signed five pro-life bills into law, stating, “Montanans sent us to Helena to boldly defend life, not send their tax dollars to abortion clinics.” He added, “Montanan’s hard-earned money should not be used by the government to fund elective abortions.” The authors continued:

According to the governor’s office, “the package defends life, protecting babies born alive following a botched abortion, restriction dismemberment abortion of babies, and prohibiting the abortion of viable babies, unless necessary to protect the life of the mother.”

One of the bills signed into law on Wednesday, SB 154, sponsored by state Sen. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, “clarifies the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution does not mean the right to an abortion.”

“Senator Regier’s Senate Bill 154 was one of the most important bills brought this session. For years in Montana, abortion activists have used the cloak of a shaky legal interpretation to advance their pro-abortion agenda. That stops today. No more,” Gianforte said.

There are five other pro-life bills awaiting action from Gianforte, according to the governor’s office.

Pro-life advocates applauded the move, praising the governor for standing up for life.

While pro-life supporters were praising the governor and acting to save the lives of babies, “pro-abortion groups accused Gianforte of putting women’s health at risk.” Martha Fuller, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana president and CEO, claimed that “These laws have the potential to harm thousands of Montanans and people across our region who have been forced to travel to Montana for care.” However, she did “not address specifics about the bills that would jeopardize women’s health.”