Parental consultation abortion bill headed to House floor
After a Helena judge in late February found Montana’s parental consent law for minors seeking abortions unconstitutional, a state lawmaker is now seeking to pass a policy requiring consultation with parents instead.
House Bill 968 from Rep. Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote Thursday with Republican support and Democratic opposition. It was introduced Tuesday and referred to the committee the day before it was heard.
The question of if parents or guardians should either consent to or be notified if their minors seek an abortion has been in legal limbo in Montana for a decade. In 2012 voters approved a legislatively passed referendum to require parental notification. Then in 2013 the Legislature passed a consent law, which Regier said Thursday was intended to clear up “loopholes” in the notification law.
Planned Parenthood of Montana sued over both the notification and consent policies and a temporary injunction left the notification part in place, but blocked the consent requirement. Since then the case moved through several judges and even different jurisdictions before Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Chris Abbott in February issued an order declaring the consent requirement unconstitutional “given the contours of the right to individual privacy established by the (state) Constitution and prior decisions.”
[…]
“This bill concedes that parental consent is no longer needed in Montana, instead requiring consultation of a parent or guardian. That means that this Legislature is agreeing that parents have no say in consenting to their minors' abortions. Is that really the Legislature's intent?” asked Quinn Leighton, the director of external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Montana.
Leighton also said the state should not interfere with the relationship between patients and doctors. Still, Leighton said, the majority of young people who obtain abortions come in with parents or guardians. When that doesn't happen, there are often compelling reasons, Leighton said.
“There are cases where that is not possible for the patients. Abuse and neglect, rape and incest, are tragic realities for some young people. There are times when consulting, notifying or requiring consent of a parent or guardian will put the pregnant teen in danger. It is imperative that we protect their rights and safety. Every single young person who is harmed by this bill is one too many,” Leighton said.
The bill is up against a procedural deadline that means it must advance from the House by April 4. Several who testified against it raised concerns with the rapid scheduling for the bill’s hearing. Lawmakers generally aim to give three days of notice, but it’s not required and often doesn’t happen when a deadline looms. With the exception of study bills, legislation must clear the chamber it started in by the deadline.
After Julia Maxon with Montana Women Vote said “the public should have more time than less than one day's notice to weigh in on a bill,” the committee’s Republican vice chair Rep. Brandon Ler, of Savage, said the committee was following procedures.
“There's been no rules broken in introducing this bill. This bill was just dropped and we have a tight deadline getting to transmittal. There's no way to bring the three-day rule so if you could leave that out of your testimony because it has no bearing on this,” Ler said.
Several other people giving testimony against the bill continued to voice concern about the timeline, and were also rebuked by Republicans on the committee.
But Democratic Rep. Laurie Bishop, of Livingston, countered that.
“I think it's OK for the public to express their frustration at the small amount of notice that they have been given on this particular bill. I don't know why we would limit people from just expressing that frustration,” Bishop said.