Gov. Greg Gianforte announced Wednesday that he had signed a bill banning Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok over concerns its data-sharing practices jeopardize user privacy and national security.

The ban, which the governor’s office said was the first of its kind in the nation, is set to take effect Jan. 1, 2024, unless it is blocked in court.

“The Chinese Communist Party using TikTok to spy on Americans, violate their privacy, and collect their personal, private, and sensitive information is well-documented,” Gianforte said in a statement. “Today, Montana takes the most decisive action of any state to protect Montanans’ private data and sensitive personal information from being harvested by the Chinese Communist Party.”

The company, owned by ByteDance, and the American Civil Liberties Union have said they intend to challenge the law, Senate Bill 419, as a violation of constitutionally protected free speech.

“With this ban, Governor Gianforte and the Montana legislature have trampled on the free speech of hundreds of thousands of Montanans who use the app to express themselves, gather information, and run their small business in the name of anti-Chinese sentiment,” ACLU of Montana Policy Director Keegan Medrano said in a statement.

A TikTok representative also criticized the law in a statement Wednesday.

“Governor Gianforte has signed a bill that infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people of Montana by unlawfully banning TikTok, a platform that empowers hundreds of thousands of people across the state,” said TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter. “We want to reassure Montanans that they can continue using TikTok to express themselves, earn a living, and find community as we continue working to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana.”

The law will bar ByteDance from allowing “the operation of tiktok by the company or users” inside Montana’s “territorial jurisdiction” as long as the platform is owned by a company based in China or another country designated a “foreign adversary” by the federal government.

The law will also make it illegal for companies like Apple and Google to let their users download the platform’s app from their respective app stores. It does not include provisions that would allow the state to prosecute individual Montanans for circumventing the ban.

The law will be enforced by the Montana Department of Justice, which has the power to levy fines of up to $10,000 a day for violations.

Gianforte, a Republican, had previously signaled he would sign the bill in an email exchange where his office suggested amendments that would have expanded the bill’s scope to to apply to all social media platforms that allow users’ personal data to be provided to nations the federal government designates as “foreign adversaries.” Those revisions were nearly identical to an amendment brought by Democrats while the bill was debated on the House floor, where they were resisted by Republican supporters of the ban who argued the changes would make the bill “unworkable.”

The governor also issued a memo Wednesday directing state agencies to ban the use of other China- and Russia-based social media apps on state devices and networks. That ban, effective June 1, will cover ByteDance apps CapCut and Lemon8 in addition to TikTok, as well as Tencent’s WeChat, Pinduoduo’s Temu and Russia-based Telegram Messenger.

“One of government’s chief responsibilities is to keep its citizens – and their personal, private, sensitive information and data – safe and secure,” Gianforte wrote in that memo. “Foreign adversaries’ collection and use of Montanans’ personal information and data from social media applications infringe on Montanans’ constitutionally guaranteed individual right to privacy.”

The post Gianforte signs TikTok ban appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte has signed into law a bill that bars the state from considering climate impacts in its analysis of large projects such as coal mines and power plants. 

House Bill 971 was among the most controversial energy- and environment-related proposals before the Legislature this session, drawing more than 1,000 comments, 95% of which expressed opposition to the measure. HB 971 bars state regulators like the Montana Department of Environmental Quality from including analyses of greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts, both within and outside Montana’s borders, when conducting comprehensive reviews of large projects. It builds off of a decade-old law barring the state from including “actual or potential impacts that are regional, national, or global in nature” in environmental reviews. 

Gianforte signed HB 971 into law May 10 over opposition from climate and environmental groups that had argued that the measure hinders the state’s ability to respond to the crisis of our time: the atmosphere-warming emissions of greenhouse gases that are shrinking the state’s snowpack, reducing summer and fall streamflows, and contributing to catastrophic flooding and longer, more intense wildfire seasons. Opponents had also argued that the majority of Montanans believe in human-caused climate change and want meaningful climate action. 

Results from a 2022 “Conservation in the West” poll of 416 registered voters in Montana bear this out. Three-fifths of those polled said there is enough evidence of climate change to support action and called for a transition to renewable energy.  

Anne Hedges with the Montana Environmental Information Center said the Legislature is “hiding its head in the sand” by passing bills like HB 971, and she anticipates it will be the subject of a constitutional lawsuit.

“Climate change is real, it matters, the climate is part of our environment, and we cannot ignore the changes that are occurring. Ignoring it doesn’t make it better. It will only make things worse and make it more difficult and expensive to deal with later.”

Anne Hedges, Montana Environmental Information Center’s director of policy and legislative affairs

“Climate change is real, it matters, the climate is part of our environment, and we cannot ignore the changes that are occurring,” Hedges said. “Ignoring it doesn’t make it better. It will only make things worse and make it more difficult and expensive to deal with later.”

“Our families are already suffering from an increase in the number of sweltering summer days, longer wildfire and smoke seasons, and historic drought,” Winona Bateman, executive director of Families for a Livable Climate, wrote in an email to Montana Free Press. “I am not sure how Gov. Gianforte imagines we will do our part to address these growing impacts, or pay for them, if we’re not working to eliminate the root cause. Why would we wait for federal regulations to be part of the solution?”

Proponents of the measure, including its sponsor, Rep. Josh Kassmier, R-Fort Benton, argued that by pushing back on a recent ruling revoking a NorthWestern Energy gas plant permit, HB 971 underscores that it’s lawmakers, not judges, who set policy. Other proponents, including the Treasure State Resources Association and the Montana Petroleum Association, asserted that HB 971 protects state agencies from an “unworkable” mandate to measure greenhouse gas emissions and that any such regulation properly belongs under federal regulatory frameworks such as the Clean Air Act.

Gianforte spokesperson Kaitlin Price echoed this assessment in a statement to Montana Free Press.

“House Bill 971 re-established the longstanding, bipartisan policy that analysis conducted pursuant to the Montana Environmental Policy Act does not include analysis of greenhouse gas emissions,” Price said. “The bill would allow evaluation of GHGs if it is required under federal law or if Congress amends the Clean Air Act to include carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant.”

During a committee hearing on the bill last month, Sen. Jen Gross, D-Billings, asked Kassmier if he believes humans cause climate change.

“House Bill 971 re-established the longstanding, bipartisan policy that analysis conducted pursuant to the Montana Environmental Policy Act does not include analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Gov. Greg Gianforte spokesperson Kaitlin Price

“I’m not a scientist, so I’m not going to answer that,” he replied.

For his part, Gianforte told Montana Free Press in a 2021 interview that he does believe in human-caused climate change. He said “American ingenuity” can help mitigate it and argued for the government to remove friction in the marketplace.. 

The bill also comes as a Helena judge is weighing a case brought by 16 youth plaintiffs asking the judicial branch to require the state to measure and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That lawsuit, Held vs. Montana, is set for a 10-day hearing that will start June 12.

It also comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers a rule that would expand regulations dealing with power plants’ emissions of greenhouse gasses. If passed, the rule would require power plants like the coal-fired plant in Colstrip to capture 90% of its carbon emissions by 2038.

The post Gianforte signs bill banning state agencies from analyzing climate impacts  appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Given that Montana’s top two industries are agriculture and recreation, it should come as no surprise that Montanans are quick to engage with policies seeking changes to the water and open space that are foundational to both. 

How proposals to change water rights, stream access and conservation funding were received by policymakers the past four months illuminates entrenched sources of tension — between developer and agricultural interests, between federal and state wildlife managers, and even between Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, and members of his own party. Here are three takeaways from the 2023 legislative session informed by bills that passed, bills that failed and funding fights that remain unresolved.

PROPOSALS SEEKING TO CHANGE STREAM ACCESS, PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND EXEMPT WELLS FLOUNDER

Three proposals seeking to change what might be euphemistically called “sensitive pieces of code” failed to find favor this session, suggesting Montanans’ continued — and impassioned — engagement with public land access and water rights issues.

One failed measure, Senate Bill 357, sought to prohibit the state from acquiring permanent easements, which the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks use to support wildlife habitat and public access initiatives. After garnering opposition from a diverse set of stakeholders, ranging from timber companies and agricultural associations to conservation organizations and hunting advocacy groups, the Senate Fish and Game Committee tabled the bill over the wishes of its chair (and SB 357 sponsor), Steve Hinebauche, R-Wibaux, who had argued that “forever is a long time” and that a proliferation of perpetual easements could impede the construction of infrastructure such as roads and transmission lines. Opponents of SB 357 countered that those who enter into easement agreements do so willingly and that conservation easements support the wildlife, recreational opportunities and open spaces many Montanans treasure.

Another proposal to change Montana law dealing with easements — in this instance, rights of way that have been historically used by the public, but never codified on a deed — had a swift rise and an equally swift fall this session. With little in the way of public notice, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on and passed Senate Bill 497, which sought to do two things: establish that a landowner can use the presence of government signs over a five-year period to void prescriptive easement claims, and prevent groups who sue over easement issues from recovering attorneys fees.

In the midst of the transmittal break crunch, SB 497 failed in the Senate, 14-36. Sen. Jeff Welborn, R-Dillon, argued that it doesn’t work well to meddle with a “sensitive piece of code” like Montana’s Stream Access Law without bringing stakeholders along, especially in the “11th hour.” 

Finally, a real estate- and building industry-backed proposal to expand a loophole in water law dealing with groundwater wells failed to overcome an outpouring of opposition. Agricultural groups leery of House Bill 642’s potential to reduce other users’ access to water opposed the measure, as did environmental groups concerned about its capacity to degrade water quality and facilitate residential sprawl. Proponents had argued the revisions would help expand the state’s tight housing supply and introduce more clarity and lawmaker input to the Montana Water Use Act, which has been subject to judicial scrutiny in recent years.

Given the makeup of this Legislature, lawmakers probably could have passed a more moderate proposal, some onlookers suggested.

“Proponents of that bill probably could have passed something, but I think they went way too far,” Montana Environmental Information Center Deputy Director Derf Johson said. “House Natural Resources is probably the most pro-development committee in the Legislature [and even they] wouldn’t let that move forward.”

LAWMAKERS TANGO WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER GRIZZLY MANAGEMENT

In the natural resource realm, nothing seems to spotlight the tension between federal and state regulations as brightly as endangered species management. Threatened or endangered  species are subject to federal protections that limit states’ ability to set population targets, establish hunting seasons and permit habitat-altering timber sales or mining projects. During the 2023 session, lawmakers engaged in a careful dance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is taking a close look at the recovery of grizzly bears and Montana wildlife laws as it considers removing federal protections. 

In February, USFWS Director Martha Williams wrote a letter to FWP Director Henry Worsech highlighting state laws that might work counter to Montana’s efforts to assume control over grizzlies. She wrote that the 2023 legislative session “presents a good opportunity” to address those concerns.

The Legislature took Williams’ recommendation to heart. Though lawmakers ultimately decided to shelve a proposal titled “require management of delisted grizzly bears at sustainable levels,” they did pass Senate Bill 295, “Revising Laws to Accommodate Grizzly Delisting.” That bill directs the state to “manage grizzly bear populations at levels necessary to maintain delisted status,” by sticking to an established mortality threshold. SB 295 critics note that it makes it legal, post-delisting, for a rancher to obtain a permit to kill a bear “threatening” livestock without specifying the behavior that constitutes “threatening.”

Mindful of Williams’ recommendations — and Gov. Greg Gianforte’s explicit desire to resume state management of grizzlies — the Legislature balked at passing predator hunting measures sponsored by Rep. Paul Fielder, R-Thompson Falls. Fielder had attempted to write seasons for trapping wolves and pursuing black bears with hounds into state law. He also sought to override the Fish and Wildlife Commission’s ability to disallow neck snares. All three proposals narrowly failed the GOP-supermajority in the House, largely due to concerns that they would lead to preventable grizzly bear deaths.

THE  FIGHT OVER HABITAT MONTANA FUNDING IS ONGOING 

One of the Legislature’s biggest fights concerning land management —  where marijuana tax revenues should be allocated — remains unresolved. Gianforte and backers of a bill that garnered the approval of 86% of lawmakers remain locked in a tense separation-of-powers tussle over a bill that would establish a fund to support habitat and conservation initiatives.

Marijuana tax allocation had been a long-simmering fight this session, but it hit a fever pitch during the Legislature’s final week. 

A variety of different visions for the marijuana taxes emerged this session as policymakers garnered clarity on just how much money is at stake: more than $50 million annually. Some legislators, such as Rep. Marta Bergtolio, R-Montana City, suggested that the Legislature should cut the allocations for conservation and recreation programs codified in law last session and funnel more money toward law enforcement and the Department of Justice. Others, such as Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings, and House Appropriations Chair Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, called for the bulk of collections to go toward the General Fund so lawmakers have an opportunity to allocate the funds toward the state’s most pressing needs on a session-by-session basis. But Senate Bill 442, the proposal that garnered the most support among both lawmakers and public commenters, seeks to divide those revenues between county road construction and maintenance, conservation and recreation initiatives, and programming for addiction treatment and veterans. A sizable chunk would go toward the General Fund as well.

That proposal might have garnered widespread support from the legislative branch, but it didn’t align with the priorities of the governor, who has argued that funding for wildlife habitat is in good shape while other state responsibilities remain underfunded. The Bertoglio bill Gianforte favored died somewhat early, and an attempt to reincorporate much of it in a late-session “generally revise marijuana laws” bill floundered. Then, the day after the Senate issued its final vote on SB 442, Gianforte made good on his pledge to Republican leadership to veto it, rejecting the proposal with a swiftness that Sen. Minority Leader Pat Flowers, D-Belgrade, described as “curious.”

Now there’s a question as to whether lawmakers should have a final opportunity to weigh in on SB 442 by voting to override the veto. That question hinges on whether the Legislature was technically in session — the governor’s office maintains the veto was issued before the Senate moved to adjourn — and whether lawmakers were given sufficient notice of the veto. In letters and petitions to Jacobsen and Gianforte, Lang and other SB 442 backers such as the Montana Association of Counties, Wild Montana and Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, have argued a veto override poll is justified by the circumstances since the governor’s veto was not clear when the Senate voted to adjourn. 

On May 10, Wild Montana sent a letter to Gianforte urging his cooperation with the veto override process. In it, they argue that the constitution and state law make “crystal-clear” that the Legislature should have the final say in this instance and there is no legal support for stripping that power from the Legislature with “creative timing.”

Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen appears to be disinclined to get into the middle of the debate. In an email to Montana Free Press, Secretary of State spokesperson Richie Melby said his office “plays a ministerial role only” for the executive and legislative branches and “bills vetoed during the legislative session are not returned to the Secretary of State’s Office.”

“I have lots of questions,” Sen. Lang told MTFP. “I still question whether it was legally vetoed.”

The post Three takeaways from lawmakers’ approach to natural resources management appeared first on Montana Free Press.

Tommy Orange, a renowned debut literary author, recently participated in Q&A at the Belle Mehus Auditorium in Bismarck, where he addressed urban Native identity, young adult readers, a new book in the works, and plans to bring his novel “There There” to TV.

The age of the Internet, mixed-race identities, and intensified racism have changed the landscape for everyone today, said Orange. “People are thinking about things in ways that we never did before.” Young Native readers, in particular, have gravitated to “There There” because many feel seen for the first time in a literary work.

Orange said he never read a full novel until he was around 24 because he didn’t see himself in the stories. “Part of that is not identifying with all the lives that were being written that I was required to read.”

The Q&A sponsored by Humanities North Dakota featured two prominent Native creatives on April 28. Novelist Mona Susan Power, a Standing Rock Sioux citizen, led the stage conversation with Orange, a citizen of the Cheyenne and Arapaho. Both Power and Orange are PEN/Hemingway Award winners for their first-book debuts.

Each writer also has a new book soon to be published. Power’s long-awaited book “A Council of Dolls,” goes on sale in August. Readers anxiously awaiting Orange’s new book “Wandering Stars” can expect it in March 2024.

It’s the sequel to “There There,” a book published in 2018 that quickly rose as a favorite among literary critics. It won the American Book Award in 2019 and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for fiction.

Orange’s fictive writing deftly addresses myriad issues embodied in Native communities. In “There There,” a dozen characters’ lives converge at a powwow in Oakland that ends in tragedy. The stories tend to elicit sadness among readers in the United States and overseas, Orange said. A reader in Copenhagen, Denmark, told Orange he really liked the book, but then asked: “Why did you choose to write such miserable lives?”

The comment took Orange aback. “It hurts me because I’m writing about people that resemble me and my family and my community,” he told the Belle Mehus audience. “And I would never think of our lives that way.”

The captivating writing grabbed the attention of HBO producers. The media conglomerate quickly bought the TV rights to “There There” after publication. Filmmaker Sterlin Harjo was set to adapt it to the screen. But the project was later dropped. “Somewhere during the pandemic, the thread got lost,” said Orange.

“And this is before Reservation Dogs and Rutherford Falls before there was this sort of proof that people care about these shows, that the shows will be good, that there’s big talented acting pools to pick from,” Orange said.

The lost thread, however, has been picked up again, this time by NBC Universal. Orange said he had prerequisites that needed to be met before signing over his ownership rights. He wanted a Native director, Native writers, and a Native cast to bring “There There” to life.

He joined the process of picking writers for the adaptation. Tazbah Chavez was selected to be lead writer. From this point, Orange said his work is done. The TV writers are free to interpret the book as they see fit.

“I don’t need a whole lot of my vision in it,” he said. “I’m not tied to it. My work is in the book. So, I’m open to new forms and interpretations.”

The post ‘There There’: NBC Universal owns rights to Tommy Orange’s award-winning novel appeared first on Buffalo’s Fire.

In the wake of the 2023 Legislature, the Montana Republican Party on Wednesday celebrated a stack of new laws restricting abortion and reproductive health care, setting up a likely clash with the state’s nearly 25-year-old court ruling that broadly permits abortion as a private medical choice.

Though Gov. Greg Gianforte spoke approvingly about a list of 10 bills carried by Republican lawmakers this session, he only signed five into law during a ceremony at the Capitol. Those included a ban on abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy unless to save the life of the mother and another that interprets Montana’s constitutional right to privacy in state law as not including a right to abortion. He said he looks forward to signing the other bills — including a blanket restriction on the most common type of abortion after the first trimester — after they are finalized by legislative staff and leadership and transmitted to his office.

“Thank you for protecting life, for protecting our children, for promoting stronger families. Thank you for giving a voice to the voiceless. Thank you for uniting in our shared belief that every human life is precious and must be protected,” Gianforte told the crowd filled with lawmakers and anti-abortion advocates.

The advancement of the longstanding conservative agenda comes less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated federal protections for abortion. In the months that followed the order in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, voters in many states rejected further regulations on abortion and failed to deliver Republicans a decisive majority in Congress during the 2022 midterm elections — electoral outcomes national analysts have linked to blowback over the fall of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion in Montana has for decades remained legal under the unanimous 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling in Armstrong v. State. That precedent helped block Republican-backed legislation passed in 2021 from taking effect while litigation continues.

Attempting to chip away at the Armstrong ruling and curb abortion in myriad ways has remained a key priority for conservatives this session. Flanked by the governor and Republican legislators, anti-abortion advocate Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation, said this session was “the most pro-life legislative session in the history of the state of Montana” and that more work is still in store.

“With regard to the pro-life issue, as this governor is fond of saying, we are now directionally correct. But that’s just a start,” Laszloffy said. “We will not rest until the Armstrong decision is overturned, until every life is protected from the moment of conception. And until the scourge of abortion is lifted forever from the great state of Montana.”

The avalanche of bills, far more than those introduced last session, was met with full-throated opposition from reproductive rights advocates and Democrats. Opponents, including some people who testified publicly about their own abortions, argued the bills are out of step with what most Montanans want — appeals that failed to flip many Republican votes.

“Montanans take care of one another. We believe that living a life with dignity means that we can make private and personal decisions without government interference,” said Nicole Smith, executive director of Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, in a statement after the governor’s bill signing. “The 68th legislative session passed laws that seek to take away our fundamental rights. If implemented, these bills will directly harm our friends, families, and neighbors. We will continue standing up for what we know to be right, good, and moral.”

A SHIFTING LEGAL LANDSCAPE

Unless blocked by courts, the bills signed by the governor on Wednesday and those still waiting in the wings will add restrictions to abortion providers and curtail procedures at different stages of pregnancy. Together, the full slate of legislation will ban the most common procedure for abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy; prohibit abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy; bar any public funds including Medicaid from covering abortions except in rare circumstances; require parental notification for abortions sought by minors; mandate licensing for abortion clinics; adopt a narrowed version of the “born-alive” referendum Montana voters rejected in November; and codify an interpretation that the state’s constitutional right to privacy does not include the right to access an abortion.

Another bill, House Bill 786, adds reporting requirements for the prescription of abortion medication, and has already become law after Gianforte signed it in late April. The law will take effect on Oct. 1 of this year.

The bills signed on Wednesday include House Bill 303, a medical conscience bill that requires health care providers to opt-in to participating in abortions and allows them to abstain from offering other health care services; Senate Bill 154, the statutory interpretation of the Montana Constitution’s right to privacy; House Bill 575, which presumes viability at 24 weeks and prohibits procedures after that, and House Bill 625, which requires medical providers to offer life-saving care to newborn infants born after an abortion.

Supporters of the last bill say it explicitly allows parents to refuse procedures that are not reasonable, including those that “temporarily prolong the act of dying when death is imminent,” a feature of the debate over LR-131 last fall. Opponents reject that the revised language helps protect the rights of parents who are grieving pregnancy complications.

Several pieces of legislation, including HB 575 and HB 625, are set to take effect upon becoming law. As of Wednesday afternoon, no lawsuits attempting to block the policies had been announced.

Critics of the bills say many appear patently unconstitutional because of Montana’s legal precedent under the Armstrong decision. The immediate effective dates, they say, will likely jumpstart lawsuits for months to come.

“We have that procreative right of privacy and we have the right to make those decisions outside the Roe v. Wade decision,” said Robin Turner, a lobbyist who opposed the bills on behalf of the ACLU of Montana and the Montana Coalitions Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. “What this really does is create litigation … By having the bills go into immediate effect, it does call the question much sooner.”

Attorneys representing Planned Parenthood of Montana attempted in mid-April to temporarily block the enforcement of the 15-week restriction. At the time, the bill had passed both chambers of the Legislature but had not yet been passed to the governor’s office for his signature or veto.

Hours after that filing was submitted, Helena District Court Judge Kathy Seely rejected the motion for a temporary restraining order, adding a handwritten note near her signature.

“No bill has been signed. Thus, no ‘law’ to enjoin today,” she wrote. “Denied as premature.”

Plaintiffs have said they are prepared to resubmit their motion to block the law as soon as possible after the governor’s signature. University of Montana law professor Anna Conley said that timeline leaves room for the law to take effect until a court says otherwise.

“The law will be in effect unless it is enjoined by a court, either as a temporary restraining order … or as a preliminary injunction,” said Conley in an April emailed statement. “If a court denies a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the court’s denial can be appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.”

Ultimately, it is the state’s high court that will have to deliberate on the many legal challenges to the Armstrong ruling. The Montana Supreme Court last year upheld a district court ruling that blocked Republican abortion restrictions from taking effect while litigation continued but has not squarely weighed in on Armstrong in the years since the unanimous opinion was issued.

“It’s going to be very uncertain until courts start ruling,” said University of Montana law professor Craig Cowie in a written response to questions from MTFP. “Courts may stay the laws or allow them to go into effect (depending both on their views of the challenges to the laws about abortion and the changes to the laws about ordering injunctions). The Supreme Court may also rule on the stays, but ultimately we won’t know for sure until the Supreme Court answers the question on Armstrong.”

‘YOU DON’T KNOW MY SITUATION’

Caught within the legal and political gridlock are patients, families and providers evaluating how the new slate of bills would impact their lives. Montanans with personal stories about abortions have attended committee hearings and shared their experiences publicly, spurred on by restrictions in other states and, for some, the prospect of patients losing access in Montana.

In November, the same month newly elected lawmakers were imagining their futures in Helena, Bozeman resident Anne Angus and her husband were in mourning. Weeks earlier, Angus, 33, had received a new diagnosis about her pregnancy. Her baby had Eagle-Barrett syndrome, a rare condition affecting the urinary tract, abdomen, kidneys and lungs that can range in severity. Angus said her medical team identified the diagnosis as on the serious side of the spectrum around the 24-week mark of her pregnancy.

“They gave us the best-case scenario, which was a lifetime of, honestly, what I felt were experimental surgeries, very painful experimental surgeries,”

Angus, a data scientist who testified about her story at the Legislature this year, said in an April interview with Montana Free Press that her doctors, after more evaluation, suggested the family consider termination. In the middle of what she called a “very wanted” pregnancy, Angus was not prepared to pivot. After further consultations with specialists, she said, the medical reality of what her son was facing began to sink in.

“We made the decision there. Obviously, that night was rough,” Angus said. A week earlier she had bought an infant onesie printed with teddy bears — after leaving the hospital, she said, “I just stayed up all night crying, thinking he’s never going to wear that.”

Angus terminated her pregnancy two weeks later in November at an out-of-state clinic, partly because the procedure was beyond the scope of practice for abortion clinics in Montana. The experience broadened her perspective on reproductive rights, she said, and affirmed her belief that the government shouldn’t create blanket restrictions on highly personal circumstances.

“Now I understand, oh, pregnancy follows its own timeline. Pregnancy follows its own road,” Angus told Montana Free Press.

To the lawmakers supporting legislation that would override such personal decisions, Angus said she wishes they could understand her perspective.

“You’re never going to love my kid more than I do,” she said. “… There’s nothing shameful about doing what you think is most loving in a horrible situation,” she said.

Looking at the bills that have advanced through the session, Angus described being “terrified” about trying to become pregnant again. If she again needs to terminate the pregnancy for medical reasons, she said, she’s afraid of how Montana’s laws would restrict her options, including the bill that prohibits dilation and evacuation procedures.

“I’m looking at drive times to Washington and Colorado because if that passes, if I have an acute medical event, I’m not going to be able to get care here because [dilation and evacuation] is the safest, most effective way to terminate a pregnancy if you need to,” Angus said. “I’m not going to wait until I’m in septic shock to get care. I’m going to drive seven hours to Washington or nine hours to Colorado. It sucks I have to think about that, but I do.”

Two other Montanans who spoke to MTFP about their abortions noted other pieces of legislation that struck them as egregious infringements on reproductive rights, including the prohibitions on Medicaid and other public funding for abortions. One of those bills, House Bill 544, mimics a state health department rule that has been temporarily enjoined by a district court judge. Another, House Bill 862, seeks to implement the federal Hyde Amendment in state law, allowing Montana Medicaid funds to pay for abortion only in the cases of rape, incest or to prevent the pregnant person from dying.

Ali, another Bozeman resident who asked MTFP to withhold her last name to protect her privacy, said the Medicaid prohibitions would function as a sharp restriction on abortion for low-income patients. Ali said she was able to pay the roughly $800 for her abortion in 2021 out of her own pocket, without private insurance coverage, but that that option is not available to many people.

“I think that that’s one of the most devastating things we’ve done this session,” Ali said. “It’s obviously going to affect low-income people and people of color more than anybody else. And I think that’s a real shame that that has been passed this session. I think it’s going to do some serious harm.”

Above all, Ali said, the restrictions pushed by Republicans seem to conflict with what most Montanans want — a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute showed that 64% of state residents say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The thought of spending years in court fighting restrictions at the state and national level, Ali said, is exhausting.

“There is just sort of like a general level of exhaustion that comes from feeling continually disappointed and nervous about what my options are going to be surrounding reproductive health care,” she said. “Historically, because of our Constitution, this has felt like a safer place to be. And I hope that that doesn’t continue to be sort of eroded and encroached on. It’s more or less a waste of people’s time to push legislation through that isn’t in line with our Constitution.”

‘WE DO FEEL THAT STRONG ABOUT IT’

Despite pushback from voters in other states over the last year indicating popular support for abortion rights, Republicans in Montana’s Legislature rarely voted against restrictions this session. Some of those who did, including Sen. Wendy McKamey, R-Great Falls, and Sen. Jeff Welborn, R-Dillon, indicated they saw privacy as a foundational right and that certain abortion bills risked government overreach.

Two other lawmakers from the majority party who asked for anonymity to discuss party politics said they didn’t agree with the full slate of abortion bills, attributing the focus on the issue to particularly devout Christian lawmakers who made it a priority. Regardless, both legislators said they couldn’t risk undermining their own bills or relationships with others in their party by voting against abortion restrictions.

Some sponsors of the bills framed their efforts as aligned with the Republican Party platform and fundamental to their personal prerogatives about protecting life before birth.

“I think it’s sad that the message is about the woman’s body and not the little girl whose body is inside that woman’s body,” said Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, R-Great Falls, in an April interview. “… Even if Montana voted [in favor of abortion access] it’ll still be in our platform. And the day it isn’t there’ll be a lot of people that leave the Republican Party and do something else because we do feel that strong about it.”

Sheldon-Galloway, who sponsored HB 575 to limit abortion after 24 weeks and several other proposals, said she understands most Montanans don’t want a total ban on abortion — a reason she pointed to for why Republicans didn’t push a fetal personhood bill this session intended to outlaw abortion entirely. Instead, she said, she attempted to narrowly tailor her legislation while still protecting the unborn. In the case of HB 575, for example, Sheldon-Galloway did not include an exception for rape or incest victims, a personal sticking point she referenced with MTFP.

“People say I’m not being compassionate to people that, you know, got raped,” Sheldon-Galloway said. “To me, killing a child and being raped is two things that you have to live with for the rest of your life. I really believe in the Lord Jesus Christ healing and by giving birth to that child, he’ll heal you from the rape trauma. And through his grace, maybe even erase it from your memory. And I’ve seen that happen, too.”

Speaking at the May bill signing, Republican lawmakers and Gianforte framed the cumulative list of bills as a strong effort to protect life, children and families. The governor elaborated on that vision by referencing his proposed child tax credit, which lawmakers failed to advance, and the successfully passed $5,000 tax credit for adoptive parents. Both policies, he said, would help people who are considering abortions.

“Ultimately, every child deserves a loving home. Too often we lose unborn children because their parents don’t feel ready to welcome their child into the world with the support they need and deserve. Adoption, not abortion, is often the answer,” Gianforte said. “We will always support life because that’s the outcome we all strive for.”

Editor’s note: This article was updated on Wednesday, May 3, to correct bill descriptions of House Bill 303 and House Bill 625.

The post With some Republican abortion restrictions signed into law, critics blast government overreach into personal health care choices appeared first on Montana Free Press.

For the past seven years, the City of Phoenix has recognized Indigenous Peoples’ Day instead of Columbus Day every second Monday of October, but it was never an official city holiday.

But now that’s changed. With a vote of 7-1, the Phoenix City Council made it official, and Indigenous Peoples’ Day has been designated a city holiday.

“This is really exciting,” said Democrat Councilwoman Laura Pastor, of District 4, during a city council meeting on April 19.

Pastor said she’s been working with Indigenous communities to declare this resolution and to introduce one involving land acknowledgment, which is the acknowledgment that the city rests on the ancestral homelands of Indigenous people.

The Phoenix City Council on April 19 approved the resolution to declare the second Monday in October of each year as a designated city holiday known as Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

“This is an exciting item that has been many years in the making,” Phoenix Mayor Katie Gallego said during the council meeting. She talked about how Indigenous Peoples’ Day was originally only recognized as a day, but this vote makes it a full city holiday.

“Phoenix is proud to recognize the roots on which our city was founded,” Gallego tweeted after the resolution passed.

During the council meeting, only one city council member questioned the resolution: Republican Councilman Jim Waring, of District 2.

Waring voiced his concern about the cost of the city holiday and questioned exactly how much it would be for the city to create an additional holiday.

Assistant City Manager Lori Bays answered his question, saying that an additional city holiday would cost the city approximately $1.5 million from the general fund and approximately $2 million from all funds.

Waring questioned whether the city planned to take away an additional holiday because it would be revenue neutral if one holiday was swapped for another.

Bays said no other city holiday would be taken away. If so, that decision would be up to the Phoenix City Council to make in the future, because the resolution proposal was to add Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a holiday without removing any other holiday.

By declaring Indigenous Peoples’ Day a city holiday, Waring said the city was asking taxpayers not to have the city open for another day and to pay $2 million for the privilege.

The resolution passed 7-1, and Waring was the only one to vote against it.

This means that Phoenix City Offices will be closed, and it will be a paid holiday for full-time city employees. It will be added to the 12 other recognized city holidays.

The State of Arizona does not recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day as an official holiday. In the past, state officials have introduced resolutions to officially recognize the day across Arizona, but those have never passed through the legislature.

When Laura Medina heard the City of Phoenix will officially recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a city holiday, she commended the decision by saying it was “amazing and awesome.”

“It’s great that there are these movements going on,” Medina said.

Medina is an organizer with the nonprofit Matriarch Ways, which was originally called Indigenous Peoples Arizona. The group has been hosting celebrations of Indigenous Peoples Day since 2015.

But, Medina wondered if the city holiday will go beyond being performative. Medina said she can’t help but ask if this is really abolishing Columbus Day.

“Is that really abolishing the idea of what this individual represented?” Medina asked. “I do know that there is a lot that needs to happen.”

She is hopeful that the City of Phoenix’s move to make Indigenous Peoples’ Day an official city holiday will spread and that people will get the day off to reflect on the land that they live on.

Medina hopes that people don’t treat the day as if it’s just another vacation day but rather use it as an opportunity to connect and acknowledge the Indigenous communities within their community and understand that they are living on stolen land.

“Pay respect to the original people who call this place home,” Medina said.

She hopes people take the time to understand the struggles that Indigenous communities are actively facing, from the militarization of the border to the disrespect and destruction of their sacred sites.

Matriarch Ways hosts an Indigenous Peoples’ Day celebration every October and other workshops or events geared toward Indigenous communities. For more information about their work, visit their website.

The post Phoenix designates Indigenous Peoples’ Day a city holiday appeared first on Buffalo’s Fire.

The Montana House of Representatives voted on party lines Wednesday to discipline transgender Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr by barring her from the chamber’s floor, anteroom and gallery for the remainder of the 68th Montana Legislature, which is scheduled to end no later than May 5.

House Majority Leader Sue Vinton, R-Billings, who brought the motion to bar Zephyr, said the Missoula representative will be allowed to vote remotely but will not be allowed to speak during floor debates. Zephyr’s punishment will not apply to her work in committees, which will continue unrestricted, though most legislative action occurs on the floor at this point in the session.

The disciplinary action follows a protest of House Speaker Matt Regier’s decision to not recognize Zephyr during floor debates that erupted in the House gallery Monday. During the disruption, when protesters chanted “let her speak” and police began handcuffing people and removing them from the gallery, Zephyr remained on the floor, holding her microphone in the air.

“Monday, this body witnessed one of its members participating in conduct that disrupted and disturbed the orderly proceedings of the body,” Vinton said in support of her motion. “This member did not accede to the order of the speaker to come to order and finally to clear the floor and instead encouraged the continuation of the disruption of this body, placing legislators, staff and even our pages at risk of harm.”

Montana Highway Patrol officers arrested seven protesters on misdemeanor trespassing charges as they cleared out the galley on Wednesday. A joint force of riot police from the city of Helena and the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office was also present. Police citations state the protesters were removed from the gallery and charged with trespassing for disrupting legislative proceedings, but document no violence or property damage.

Almost a week before the protest, Zephyr told lawmakers they would have blood on their hands for supporting Senate Bill 99, legislation that restricts gender-affirming care for transgender youth — a reference, she’s said, to increased suicide risks for people who don’t have access to such medical treatments. Zephyr is the first openly trans woman elected to the Montana Legislature, and Republicans have brought multiple bills this session restricting and criminalizing transgender health care and expression.

Her remarks generated an immediate objection from Vinton and, later, a call from the hard-right Montana Freedom Caucus for Zephyr to be censured. In a Wednesday press release, the Freedom Caucus noted that it was the first to advocate consequences for Zephyr.

For several days after her remarks, Zephyr attempted to register to speak about bills before the House and Regier refused to recognize her, which is the speaker’s prerogative under House rules. Regier suggested he might recognize her again if she apologized, but Zephyr made it clear that wouldn’t happen.

“I have lost friends to suicide this year,” she said last week. “I field the calls from multiple families who dealt with suicide attempts, with trans youth who have fled the state, people who have been attacked on the side of the road, because of legislation like this. I spoke with clarity and precision about the harm these bills do. And they say they want an apology, but what they really want is silence as they take away the rights of trans and queer Montanans.”

The conflict came to a head on Monday, with protesters’ chants drowning out Regier’s attempts to bring the House to order after a vote to affirm his ruling. Republican justifications of the motion to censure Zephyr Wednesday have focused mostly on Monday’s events, rather than her remarks last week.

Zephyr, whom the speaker allowed an opportunity to speak on the floor Wednesday under the procedure for disciplining a member, defended Monday’s protest as an expression of disenfranchisement by her 11,0000 constituents.

“And when I continued to not be recognized, what my constituents and my community did is they came here and said, ‘That is our voice in this body. Let her speak,’” Zephyr said on the floor. “And when the speaker gaveled down the people demanding that democracy work, demanding that their representative be heard, what he was doing was driving a nail in the coffin of democracy. But you cannot kill democracy that easily, and that is why they kept chanting ‘let her speak,’ and why I raised my microphone to amplify their voices.”

Republicans on Wednesday pursued the motion to censure Zephyr under a combination of legislative rules and the Montana Constitution, which says a chamber of the Legislature can “expel or punish a member for good cause shown with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members.”

Rep. Casey Knudsen, R-Malta, who chairs the House Rules Committee, said on the floor Wednesday that Zephyr “violated the collective rights and safety of 99 other members of this body, our staff, our pages and the public,” which he identified as “good cause” for punishment.

Other lawmakers from either side of the aisle also rose to explain their votes Wednesday.

Rep. Jonathan Windy Boy, D-Box Elder, said his uncle always told him to keep one thing in mind: “No matter who we are, that we are all equal under the eyes of almighty. And always remember, when you point your finger at somebody, look how many are pointing back.”

Windy Boy, whose first term in the Legislature was in 2003, said he’s seen lawmakers nearly come to blows on the floor with no consequence. He recalled an incident in 2013 when then-Senate President Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, refused to recognize Senate Minority Leader Jon Sesso, D-Butte. Democrats pounded their desks with coffee cups and other items in protest.

“We got up and we hit the desks, we almost got charged for messing up the state’s property,” Windy Boy said. “Why weren’t we disciplined at that time? We should have. I would have went to jail, and I would have been found guilty. We’re picking one person in this body for something she believes is right.”

Two Republicans who spoke — Knudsen and Hamilton Rep. David Bedey — had previously voted against upholding Regier’s decision not to recognize Zephyr, but showed an apparent change of heart following Monday’s protest.

“The behavior of [Zephyr] has been in the news for over a week,” Bedey said. “And I must admit [that] opinions concerning her prior utterances vary, even within my caucus. But today we’re not here to pass judgment on what might have been said or done before this past Monday, but rather to consider the specific actions that were taken on a specific day.”

Zephyr, he said, could have chosen to leave the floor with other lawmakers or attempted to “calm the crowd.”

A small gathering of protesters assembled outside the Capitol Wednesday. Legislative leadership preemptively closed both the House and Senate galleries, which the public is usually free to access to observe legislative proceedings.

The discipline imposed by the House Wednesday is likely unprecedented in the state’s modern history. In 1975, then-majority Democrats could not get adequate support for a motion to censure three Republican lawmakers regarding an alleged campaign practices violation. Before the ratification of the state’s 1972 Constitution — a time in Montana history when corruption was a fixture of the state’s political culture — there appear to have been several efforts to expel lawmakers, some successful. The first dates to 1897, when lawmakers voted to expel Martin Buckley of Jefferson County.

Regier, in a press conference following the House’s vote Wednesday, said restricting Zephyr from the floor is necessary to ensure the safety of the body and to maintain decorum.

“We’ve had multiple breaches of decorum,” Regier said. “We do every session, we have people from both sides of the aisle … that breach decorum” and they usually apologize and say they’ll stay within the rules moving forward. “We’re not going to treat one representative differently from the other 99,” he added.

Wednesday marked the second consecutive day in which the House did not vote on any legislation on second reading — the main hurdle bills face in each chamber. On Tuesday, Regier canceled the House floor session with no explanation. On Wednesday, the House adjourned shortly after the motion to punish Zephyr passed.

House Minority Leader Kim Abbott, D-Helena, on Wednesday defended Zephyr and criticized the “opportunity cost” of the motion to restrict Zephyr’s participation with so few days left in the session. The Montana Constitution caps the length of regular legislative sessions at 90 legislative days.

“We don’t have a state budget,” Abbott said on the floor. “We don’t have a plan for housing. We don’t have a plan for childcare. We don’t have a plan for permanent property tax relief. We don’t have a plan for mental health. We don’t have a plan for provider rates. And today we’re on this floor debating this motion and hopefully we can get back to work. I sure hope so.”

She described her vote against the motion as a vote supporting constitutional principles.

“You know what, I agree that you absolutely can do this — by rule, by the Constitution, by Mason’s [Manual of Legislative Procedure],” Abbott said on the floor. “But just because you can do it does not mean that’s the right choice.”

Mara Silvers contributed reporting.

The post House Republicans bar Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr for breaching decorum appeared first on Montana Free Press.