Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Politics

MT lawmakers seek to interpret state constitution as means to restrict abortion

by January 18, 2023
January 18, 2023
MT lawmakers seek to interpret state constitution as means to restrict abortion

The Montana legislature is considering a proposal that would interpret the state’s constitutional right to privacy to mean that it does not protect the right to an abortion, a move that would echo others in several states to severely restrict or ban abortion.

Sen. Keith Regier, the proposal’s sponsor, argued during a committee hearing Tuesday that the phrase ‘individual privacy’ in the state Constitution should also refer to unborn babies that are individuals who have rights that should not be infringed upon.

State efforts to regulate abortion became more urgent after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June — in the Dobbs v. Jackson case — to leave abortion rights up to the states. The ruling overturned the 1973 decision in the Roe v. Wade case that found the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provided a privacy right that protected the right to an abortion.

The Iowa Supreme Court in June cleared the way for lawmakers to limit or ban abortion in that state, reversing a decision issued by the court just four years earlier that guaranteed the right to abortion under the Iowa Constitution. Other states, meanwhile, including Minnesota and Maine, are taking steps to protect abortion access.

Earlier this month, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld a ban on abortions on the same day that justices in South Carolina blocked a law that would ban abortions after cardiac activity in the fetus can be detected.

Montana’s Constitution states: ‘The right to individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.’

‘Privacy was never intended as a cloak for abortion,’ said Bob Leach, a Republican activist who supports the bill that would effectively nullify a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that protects a woman’s right to a pre-viability abortion.

But abortion rights advocates argued that the states protect privacy and, therefore, abortion.

Martha Fuller, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, testified Tuesday that Montana’s constitutional right to privacy is one of the strongest in the nation. She was among several opponents who said the courts, not the Legislature, should determine what is or isn’t in the Constitution.

Supporters of Regier’s bill argue the Montana Supreme Court was wrong in its 1999 Armstrong ruling and Regier’s proposed law, which would likely face a legal challenge if it passed, would give the Montana Supreme Court a chance to reconsider its previous ruling.

Republican lawmakers also noted under Montana law, people can be charged with homicide for causing the death of a fetus. However, the law includes exceptions for abortions.

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on Regier’s bill on Tuesday.

Under current Montana law, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks of gestation. The 2021 Legislature passed a law to reduce the time of gestation to 20 weeks, but a judge has blocked it from being enforced while the legal challenge is pending.

As part of the state’s defense of the 2021 abortion laws, Attorney General Austin Knudsen asked the state Supreme Court to overturn its 1999 Armstrong ruling.

The ruling states that the constitutional right to privacy leads to a right to personal autonomy that includes the right to make medical judgments affecting bodily integrity and a woman’s right to obtain a pre-viability abortion.

Knudsen said the framers of Montana’s 1972 Constitution did not include the right to an elective abortion in the document and he argues the issue should be left to the Legislature.

However, a group of Constitutional Convention delegates filed a brief in the case saying their intention was to leave it to the judiciary to determine what was included in Montana’s constitutional right to privacy. The state Supreme Court declined Knudsen’s request to take up the Armstrong ruling before the lower court held a hearing and ruled in the legal challenge to the 2021 abortion laws.

At a March for Life rally at the state Capitol last Friday, Knudsen again argued the Armstrong ruling should be overturned.

Gov. Greg Gianforte also spoke, saying efforts to restrict access to abortion also need to include ways to help families to care for children.

Gianforte noted his legislative proposals this year include increasing postpartum Medicaid coverage to a year, up from two months; the creation of a $1,200 annual tax credit for the parents of children under the age of 6 and who earn less than $50,000 a year; and a $5,000 tax credit for families that adopt children.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
California bill would allow Mexican students near border to pay in-state community college tuition
next post
Byron Donalds is asked about George Santos, points out Democratic senator who ‘lied about his service’

You may also like

House plows ahead on Trump agenda after Johnson...

April 7, 2025

“Long-Debunked Conspiracy Theories” – White House Responds to...

November 17, 2022

FBI investigating leak of classified docs on Israeli...

October 23, 2024

Matt Tyrmand Shows More Massive Crowds in Brazil...

November 3, 2022

DOGE helps State Department eliminate Biden admin’s DEI...

April 8, 2025

The FBI Put the Equivalent of a $1...

October 23, 2022

Tomorrow Is Ashli Babbitt’s 37th Birthday And Her...

October 9, 2022

UNBELIEVABLE: Electoral Court in Brazil to Investigate Bolsonaro;...

December 15, 2022

Meet Israel’s Gun-Toting Right-Wing Kingmaker Ben Gvir: “Terrorists...

November 2, 2022

Marjorie Taylor Greene says Biden impeachment inquiry will...

September 13, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Rescissions: A Small but Welcome Step Toward Spending Discipline

      June 5, 2025
    • DAVID MARCUS: Why Navy ships should not be named for gay rights icons

      June 5, 2025
    • GREGG JARRETT: Biden, the ‘marionette president; and the case of the runaway autopen

      June 5, 2025
    • Trump Practically Bans Travel and Immigration from 12 Countries with Flimsy Security Justifications

      June 5, 2025
    • ‘He’s not a big factor’: Trump’s Senate allies dismiss Elon Musk’s calls to ‘kill the bill’

      June 5, 2025
    • Fears grow that Tata Steel could be excluded from Starmer-Trump trade deal

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,147)
    • Investing (2,008)
    • Politics (15,523)
    • Stocks (3,127)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved