News & Updates

In a scene reminiscent of an elementary school letting out for summer vacation, the Montana House of Representatives followed the Senate’s lead and adjourned yesterday morning for their much-anticipated transmittal break. Lobbyists actually led the way, knowing their chances of button-holing a legislator for a quick discussion on a bill were slim to none. In Montana, we know better than to get between dratted cows and a water hole, and these legislators were heading home as fast as their cars would carry them. By noon, the Capitol was silent. And it’s a good time for us to stop and assess the first half of the 2017 legislative session.

If you go to the legislative website, you’ll see hundreds of bills with a status that says, “missed deadline for general bill transmittal.” For all intents and purposes, those bills are dead. For us, it’s bittersweet. We did kill some bad bills, but we also lost a good one, as well. Our greatest relief was the defeat of House Bill 417, the bill to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Montana Human Rights Law. Well not technically dead, it failed the blast motion by 17 votes, so its chances of being revived are almost nil. This is good news for people of faith who don’t want to be forced to participate in same-sex marriages.

On the flip side, a good bill that missed transmittal was the bill to ban physician-prescribed suicide that we talked about yesterday. It passed second reading by a narrow two-vote margin, then died on third reading on a tie. It’s sad, but we knew all along that the vote would be nip and tuck. We just have one bad bill remaining, and that’s House Bill 477, a bill to allow the State to regulate church-run treatment programs, even if the program accepts no state dollars. We’ve killed this bill in each of the past five sessions, and the plan is to kill it again right after transmittal.

On the plus side, nearly all of our good bills are still alive. These include pro-life bills, such as Senate Bill 282, a bill that would ban the abortion of viable babies after 24 weeks gestation; and Senate Bill 329, also known as the Montana Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill would ban the abortion of fetuses capable of feeling pain, which, according to scientific literature, is any time after 20 weeks. One wonders how anyone in their right mind could vote “no” on these bills, but Planned Parenthood will be out in force. The final pro-life bill will be a personhood amendment. It’s still in drafting, but will be introduced as soon as the legislature returns.

On the School Choice front, the House passed a bill to create public charter schools. Its chances are also good in the Senate, but the governor has promised the teachers’ union that he will veto it. We also have a bill to create Education Savings Accounts for children with special needs and another to raise the amount of the tax credit for donations to scholarship organizations. Both bills are hated by the teachers’ union, so they must be good.

All in all, it’s been a good session so far. We’ve cleared the first hurdles, but there’s still a long way to go. And I want to take a moment to thank you, our listeners, for heeding our calls to action. The sprint to the end of the session begins next week, and our team will be here until the last vote on the last day to keep you up-to-date and informed.

In a week filled with political high drama, especially on bills of great concern to people of faith, one of the big stand-outs was Senate Bill 282 by Senator Olszewski from the Flathead. Senator Olszewski, an orthopedic surgeon by trade, is quickly becoming a star in the pro-life community, and Senate Bill 282 would ban abortions after 24 weeks of gestation.

As predicted, the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing room was filled with people on both sides of the abortion issue. On the pro-life side were pastors and clergy, lobbyists for pro-life organizations, and passionate citizens from across the state. On the pro-abortion side were the usual suspects from Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Montana Human Rights Network and a myriad of other left-leaning pro-abortion groups.

The bill itself was fairly simple. If the child is 24 weeks or more in gestation, it bans feticide, which is the killing of the unborn child, and is required before an abortion, AND it limits the delivery options to either a vaginal birth or a C-section. The beauty of the bill, besides banning late-term abortions, is that it uses hard science and statistics against the abortion industry, while providing for maximum safety for the mother. As Dr. Olszewski explained, the risk of complications skyrockets as abortions are performed later in pregnancy. At 24 weeks, the number of deaths of women during a normal vaginal delivery is 3.6 per 100,000. With a C-section, that number rises to 13.6 deaths per 100,000. And having an abortion at 24 weeks raises that number to over 70 deaths per 100,000. At 24 weeks of gestation, the risk of death is nearly 20 times higher when having an abortion than by having a normal vaginal delivery.

Another plus for this bill is that 24 weeks is considered the acceptable age of viability. Pre-term babies have survived as young as 19 weeks, but it’s rare and presents a host of complications. Children born at 24 weeks routinely survive, and the number of complications are far fewer.

The high point of the hearing came when a freshman member of the committee who also happens to be an employee of Planned Parenthood tried to take on Senator Olszewski during questioning. She did her best for her employer, but in the end, she was no match for an experienced legislator who also happens to be a surgeon. Olszewski was unflappable, and for good reason: He’s got truth on his side, he’s got science on his side; and he’s got God on his side. It makes for a much stronger position than Planned Parenthood standing up with nothing but a Supreme Court decision on their side.

Another thing for those who haven’t noticed is a change in Planned Parenthood’s mantra. Until recently, they said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Now they just say abortion should be safe and legal. It’s sad really. But the good news is that we’re winning. With the millions of families desperate to adopt and advancements in science and neonatal care, abortion providers are finding it hard to justify the indiscriminate killing of viable babies. Of course, we believe that life begins at conception, so abortion at any age is wrong, but if we can stop all abortions after 24 weeks, we’ll take it as a great first step.

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Baxter v. State of Montana.  At issue was whether or not the Montana Constitution guaranteed people the right to physician-assisted suicide. In the end, the Court said assisting in a suicide remains defined as a “homicide,” but if a physician assists in a suicide and is charged with homicide, then, in a very narrow set of circumstances, they might be able to claim the “consent of the victim” as a defense. That’s it. That’s as far as the decision went.

But the folks at Compassion and Choices, the old Hemlock Society, shouted from the rooftops that assisted suicide is legal in Montana. The Montana Family Foundation commissioned a legal analysis of the Court’s decision by the state’s top homicide attorney. And he agreed with our assertion, that assisted suicide was still illegal except in a set of circumstances so incredibly narrow that they would be almost impossible for a terminally ill patient to meet.

This sent the issue back to the legislature and set up a battle that’s been going on for the past seven years; namely, how to put something in law that accurately reflects the court’s decision. Our side contends assisting a suicide is still defined as homicide, so the law should reflect that. The concern is that that sets up the possibility that someone would assist in a suicide just to set up a test case, which would allow our liberal Supreme Court to revisit the issue and possibly declare full-blown assisted suicide to be legal in Montana. Those in favor of assisted suicide have brought forward bill after bill to set up protocols and procedures for the process that they contend is now legal. Both bills have been killed in every legislative session since the decision was rendered, so the issue itself hangs in legal limbo with both sides claiming victory; that is, until this session.

In a new twist, those in favor of assisted suicide failed to bring a bill forward, and our side decided to try a new tactic. The result was House Bill 536 scheduled for a hearing in House Judiciary tomorrow, Friday, February 24^th. Unlike previous attempts, this bill uses the Court’s own words and says that when it comes to suicide, “the consent of the victim is not a defense.” It’s straightforward and simple. It protects the provisions already in law and avoids which of the narrow set of circumstances might rise to the level of legitimate consent.

It’s interesting that the same folks who are asking the legislature for more money for teen suicide prevention are the same ones advocating suicide for adults. It’s illogical, as is so much of what happens at the legislature. When it comes to assisted suicide, it’s important that it be stopped in its tracks. In those countries that have legalized it, it always eventually leads to the legalization of involuntary euthanasia, better described as state-sanctioned homicide. To make your voice heard on this crucial issue, please call the members of the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to vote “yes” on House Bill 536. That number is 444.4800. That’s 444.4800.

A quick glance through the Montana Senate hearing schedule shows a huge amount of time dedicated to hearings to confirm the governor’s appointments to agencies, boards and departments. It’s time-consuming, but it’s one of the most important roles the Senate plays. And it’s a direct check on the executive branch’s power. The interesting thing is it’s not interesting at all. Nominee after nominee comes before the Senate, and almost without exception, they’re vetted and approved in a seamless process.  And that’s how it should be. The governor should be able to surround himself with those he chooses. And seriously, how controversial can an appointment to the state’s Milk Board, Hail Insurance Board or Historical Society Board be?

It used to be that way with the office of the Commissioner of Political Practices; that is, until the past two governors began making highly partisan political appointments, so partisan, in fact, that the Senate failed to confirm three appointments in a row. That, along with a series of Federal lawsuits, which excoriated the current Commissioner of Political Practices for acting as judge, jury and executioner, and you have the impetus for the current move to disband the office and divide its duties up  between two other agencies. Montana’s the only state in the nation where the Commissioner of Political Practices gets to file complaints, investigate complaints, issue a ruling and levy a fine; in short, acting as judge, jury and executioner.

The issue came to a head this week when the Montana House of Representatives debated and passed House Bill 340, a bill to disband the Office of Political Practices and divide its duties between the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The vote, which mainly fell along party lines, with all Democrats voting “no,” and nearly all Republicans voting “yes,” was largely symbolic. The bill may even pass the Senate, but in the end it’s sure to be vetoed by the Governor. In the meantime, it gives Republicans a chance to put the current commissioner on the hot seat and force him to answer the tough questions.  By all appearances, Republicans will ride this horse as far as they can. When this bill dies, they’ll jump on a new horse named House Bill 406, which would prevent a Commissioner of Political Practices whose term is ended from being re-hired by the office for a period of six years.

Rumors circulating around the Capitol say that the plan now is for Governor Bullock to nominate Jamie McNaughton, the current Number Two in the department, to replace current Commissioner Jonathan Motl, who would then be re-hired by McNaughton to act as her Number Two, resulting in no change in the office at all. Republicans call this “hyper-partisanship,” and have vowed to put an end to it. The problem is the Governor still holds the veto pen, and both bills are as good as dead.

The second bill will give Republicans the chance to ask Motl publically if the rumor is really the plan. And maybe in the end, that’s all it’s meant to do. Regardless of the outcome, what is evident is that the current system requires the Governor to appoint political moderates for the system to work, and until they do, hyper-partisanship will be the order of the day.

Last week we told you about two school choice bills up for hearing this coming Wednesday, February 15th. Now you can add a third bill, and this one’s a doozy.

House Bill 417 by Billings Representative Kelly McCarthy would add the term “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes in every section of Montana Human Rights Law. This is the type of bill that’s been used in other states to curtail religious liberties, drive wedding cake bakers out of business, and to force schools to allow boys who think they’re girls to use high school girls’ locker rooms. In short, this is the most ominous legislation of the progressive left, and it has to be stopped.

The bill defines gender identity as “gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.” That last statement is alarming by itself. It’s the proponents’ contention that sex is not male or female, but could be any one of a number of sexes and is not defined by genetics, but is a social construct that society assigns. God’s Word says that He created two genders, male and female, but the City of New York recognizes 31 different gender identities, and so will Montana if this bill passes.

And it doesn’t stop there. Once the bill defines gender identity, it goes on to say that discriminating against a person based on their gender identity is illegal in the areas of employment, public accommodation, housing, finance and education. The scary thing is that these types of laws have been used in other states to nullify previously guaranteed Constitutional liberties, such as the freedom to practice your religion without government intervention. In fact, where these laws have passed, religious freedom arguments have routinely failed in court. That means a church-run daycare could be forced to hire a man who thinks he’s a woman. Churches could also be forced to marry homosexual couples or allow a woman who thinks she’s a man into a men’s only counseling group.

The possibilities are endless, and that’s the point. These laws are being used to deconstruct the meaning of family, what it means to be male and female, and previously-held standards of privacy and modesty. Case in point: For years, we’ve argued that these types of laws would force women to accept men in their restrooms, locker rooms and shower rooms. The other side denied that, but this bill explicitly says that people must be allowed into the bathing or dressing facilities based on their gender identity. And since there’s no objective standard for gender identity, it’s entirely possible that we could have high school senior boys showering with freshmen girls. It’s already happening in other states.

So what can we do? This is an “All Hands on Deck” moment. If you can, please come to the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee at 8 a.m. on Wednesday to voice your opposition. If you can’t, then please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to vote “No” on House Bill 417. You can do that by calling the Capitol switchboard at 444-4800 or by emailing them through the legislative website at www.leg.mt.gov.

It’s time to make your voices heard. Please contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee today and ask them to vote “No” on House Bill 417.