Bill Aims to Prohibit Montana Medicaid Abortion Funding in Most Instances
Opponents, who had the majority of testimony on the bill, said it would functionally act as a ban on abortions for low-income Montanans who could not afford them and would end up costing the state more in the long-term when those children have to be supported by taxpayer money.
“Forcing someone to give birth against their will is unconscionable, and Montanans will not stand for this government intrusion into our private lives and our personal decisions,” said Aileen Gleizer, with Missoula’s Blue Mountain Clinic. “If you pass this law, you’ll be responsible for harming low-income Montana families and burdening Montanans with costs of paying for forced child bearing.”
Hopkins told the committee the bill was simple — that it would create a Montana Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions for people on Medicaid and Medicare in most cases. Montana is currently one of 16 states that uses its own state funds to cover certain abortions under Medicaid, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
In the 1995 decision in Jeannette R. vs. Ellery, a Montana court found the state had a statutory obligation to pay for medically necessary abortions under the Montana Medicaid program through the general fund.
Physicians performing a Medicaid-covered abortion have to certify they are doing so under one of three reasons: The procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother; the pregnancy was due to rape or incest; or it is medically necessary, “but the member’s life is not endangered, with space to provide an optional explanation.”
Hopkins’ proposal would limit public funds from being used for an abortion except under two circumstances: if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or if a physician certified that the mother was in danger of dying unless an abortion is performed.
[…]
Opponents of the bill, including Montana abortion providers, civil rights groups, and citizens, said they believed that in addition to harming low-income people, the measure infringed on the right to privacy under the Montana Constitution.
In the 1999 Armstrong vs. State decision, the Montana Supreme Court held that the right to privacy means a woman can choose to have an abortion “unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest for infringing the right.”
Danielle Vazquez, speaking on behalf of Montana Women Vote, said the bill would make low-income families suffer even more financially.
“Politicians shouldn’t be able to deny anyone access to health care services, including abortions, just because of their income or who their insurance provider is,” she said.