A Montana measure that would have implemented harsh penalties for medical providers who did not give life-sustaining care to newborns was voted down last week.

Lawmakers brought forward the so-called Born-Alive Infant Protection Act for the exceedingly rare cases when a baby is born alive after an abortion, or born severely premature.

Opponents say it was misleading and unnecessary, since infanticide already is illegal.

Hillary-Anne Crosby, campaign coordinator and communications lead for the No on LR-131 campaign, said there are tragic situations when infants are born with fatal health conditions.

Families can make choices in these situations, such as to hold the infant or baptize and read last rites.

But she said LR-131 would have mandated "life saving care," which would have meant taking an infant away from its parents.

"We're certainly excited," said Crosby, "but more so just relieved on behalf of those providers that would have been torn between, 'Do I honor and respect a family's wishes or do I obey a law that I know to be cruel and unethical?'"

If the measure had passed, health-care providers found to have violated the law faced fines up to $50,000 and 20 years in prison.

While the measure has been lumped in with other abortion measures across the country, it was referred to the ballot by the 2021 Montana Legislature before the Dobbs Supreme Court case allowing states to decide on abortion. It would not have directly affected access to abortion.

Crosby said unfortunately, the lawmakers that crafted this legislative referendum did not consult with the people who would have been impacted.

"They should have reached out to these experts," said Crosby, "they should have reached out to these families to better understand what kind of support they need and what kind of laws just further traumatize them, and I really hope that that was a lesson that they took away, in that you cannot legislate what you're not even willing to try to understand."

Even with the Dobbs ruling, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled the state Constitution protects abortion access under its right to privacy.

However, now that Republicans have a supermajority in the Legislature, lawmakers could move to change this in 2023.

Crosby said she believes the "no" vote on LR-131 should be a sign that Montanans don't want this kind of change.

"We do really think that LR-131 sent a pretty clear message that Montanans value our privacy and we value our private medical decisions," said Crosby. "So hopefully they'll take that cue and they will trust and respect and support Montanans' wishes. But if not, we'll be there to remind them."

Abortion restrictions have been a hot topic in the Nebraska Legislature for the second year in a row, and now the issue has heated up even more.

Sen. Merv Riepe, R-Omaha, introduced an amendment to the abortion bill sponsored by Sen. Joni Albrecht, R-Thurston, Legislative Bill 626, which would extend the ban from the point at which a heartbeat can be detected on ultrasound -- typically 6 weeks from conception -- to 12 weeks.

Calling himself a "compassionate conservative," Riepe said he added the amendment because the issue is serious, controversial and merits more debate.

"I have some concern regarding a heartbeat," Riepe explained. "Because it's so vague that I'm not sure it's defensible."

Andi Curry Grubb, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Nebraska, said in an email "a ban is a ban, plain and simple. Any abortion ban at any stage of pregnancy denies a person the fundamental right to control their own body and health care decisions." Currently, Nebraska law bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy.

Grubb wrote Riepe's amendment "illustrates that even conservative senators recognize the unworkability of LB 626 and the harm it could do to Nebraskans and physicians."

Sandy Danek, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, said her group was caught off guard and "very disappointed and surprised" with Riepe's announcement. She stated he had not spoken with anyone about concerns with Albrecht's bill -- including Albrecht herself -- prior to submitting the amendment, and added Right to Life members are trying to get Riepe to change his mind.

"This is certainly disturbing for us. Problematic," Danek asserted. "His amendment falls short of protecting preborn babies."

Riepe stressed he is not trying to be disruptive or "grandstand." He acknowledged he has constituents and friends on both sides of the issue.

"There's some people who think we need a 12-week limit as opposed to a heartbeat limit," Riepe pointed out. "And it's very emotional. I have friends that are praying for me, and I've had other people say it's still too restrictive; it's not enough."

On the opening day of Florida's legislative session, Republican lawmakers filed bills in the House and Senate to ban abortions after six weeks. In a move which would tighten the 15-week ban they approved last year, Republicans are pushing an even tougher ban, despite knowing most people aren't aware they're pregnant before six weeks.

Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation, the Senate Minority Leader, said the bills were introduced as she and others were making their way to the chamber to hear the State of the State address by Gov. Ron DeSantis.

"That is tantamount to an all-out abortion ban," Book stressed. "This is scary. These are scary times, and none of the bills that have been introduced by the Republicans will improve the lives of Floridians."

The legislation offers exemptions for victims of rape and incest, if they can provide official proof of the crime. Pro-choice advocates predict the measures will be a major barrier to critical services for Floridians, and others in the Southeast who seek care in Florida because their states have banned abortion. The bills carry the support of legislative leadership as well as the governor.

Groups like Florida Alliance for Planned Parenthood have already launched campaigns calling on alliance members and the public to contact Sen. Kathleen Pasidomo, R-Naples, the Senate president, who has already announced her support for the bill.

Rep. Fentrice Driskell, D-Tampa, the House Minority Leader, voiced concerns.

"They plan to strip privacy protections enshrined in the Florida Constitution," Driskell pointed out. "They will restrict access to medical abortion medicine, yet you can get Viagra mailed to you. What world are we living in? It's a world that's unfair to women."

The bills are spearheaded by Republican women, Sen. Erin Grall, R-Lake Placid, and Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers. The proposals also include an exception for the life of a pregnant person if two physicians certify in writing that carrying the pregnancy to term would be fatal.


get more stories like this via email

Nebraska would have one of the strictest abortion laws in the country should Legislative Bill 626 become law. It recently passed out of committee.

The bill calls for banning abortions after a "fetal heartbeat" can be detected by ultrasound, usually around six weeks of pregnancy. However, some medical experts don't consider it a "fetal heartbeat" before at least the tenth week of gestation, the point at which an embryo becomes a fetus.

Scout Richters, senior legal and policy counsel for the ACLU of Nebraska, said time is running short for Nebraskans to let their state senators know how they feel about the bill.

"Because it has that emergency clause, if it does pass, it will become law here in Nebraska, and it could be in just a few short weeks," Richters pointed out.

Richters noted in a November survey, 59% of Nebraskans from all backgrounds and across party lines said they oppose a more restrictive abortion law, with 36% supporting one.

Sen. Joni Albrecht, R-Thurston, introduced the measure, which includes exceptions for sexual assault, incest or medical emergency. A stricter abortion bill she co-sponsored last year did not pass.

Abortion bans have been hot-button issues in many states. In seven of the eight states with a ban at 12 weeks or earlier a judge has blocked it at least temporarily, including four six-week bans.

Richters emphasized medical providers from across the state were among the many who spoke during the committee hearings on the bill.

"The negative effects of this ban reverberate across the medical field, as we've seen from the number and variety of medical professionals that have spoken out in opposition to the ban," Richters observed.

She predicted there will be several rounds of floor debate and expects a number of Nebraskans will attend. She added for those who wish to speak directly with their state senators on those days, the ACLU of Nebraska will be there to help. Once the debates are on the agenda, they'll be posted on the Nebraska Legislature's website, and no doubt on the websites and social media channels of groups on all sides of the debate.