Montana legislature introduces yet another bill that bans transporting abortion-seekers
Proposed law calls for a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
Just as I wrote about the possibility that abortion trafficking bills would be upheld, a Montana legislator introduced a bill that would impose criminal penalties on people who help others get reproductive care.
House Bill 609, as it’s known, was sponsored by Kerri Seekins-Crowe, Lukas Schubert, Jane Gillette, and Braxton Mitchell. All have a record of supporting antiabortion laws. We’ve seen similar bills emerge in Idaho and elsewhere. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court rules on the matter.
The bill calls for a fine of $1,000 for violating the law and a possible 5-year prison sentence. There are no exceptions for abortion either. If they transport a woman to get an abortion who was a victim of rape or incest, they can be prosecuted just the same as a woman who chooses for other reasons.
From what I’ve seen, these bills would primarily affect abortion funds. One of the things that could happen with these anti-trafficking bills is that they could lead to prosecutors issuing a subpoena for documents kept by the abortion funds. If they have records that show they drove a woman to get an abortion, they could be prosecuted under these laws. I see this as an inevitable consequence leading to them being challenged in the federal court system.
These laws have been challenged on First Amendment grounds.
In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger struck down the law after a Tennesee lawyer and lawmaker challenged the antiabortion law because it violated their First Amendment rights. Attorney Rachel Welty and Rep. Aftyn Behn filed the complaint in July.
One of the central legal points in their complaint was that the word “recruit” was too vague to enforce. It could potentially have a range of meanings. Does that prevent the discussion of out-of-state abortion care? That was the primary question at issue for the two plaintiffs.
In December, a three-judge panel issued a decision about Idaho’s abortion trafficking bill that nullified one part and upheld another. The case concerned an abortion trafficking statute, which calls for punishment of up to five years in prison for any adult who helps a minor get an abortion and then conceals it from their parents. The law did not exempt abortion providers from another state or telemedicine providers who send abortion medication to minors who live in Idaho.
Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote the majority opinion that ruled harboring or transporting minors doesn’t qualify as speech. But insofar as the recruiting aspect, the court the majority that advising, encouraging, counseling, educating, or protesting for abortion rights was protected by the First Amendment. It is legal for a resident to get an abortion where it is permitted by law.
Yesterday, I featured the expert opinion of Hannah Rahim, a JD/MPH student at Harvard Law School and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who wrote about the possible constitutionality of those bans. Unlike other pro-choice writers, she explained why the travel bans could be upheld.
“If there was some kind of case that came down and upheld a state ban, I think that would drastically reduce women who are going for abortions in other states because they would be afraid,” Rahim told me.