A Montana measure that would have implemented harsh penalties for medical providers who did not give life-sustaining care to newborns was voted down last week.

Lawmakers brought forward the so-called Born-Alive Infant Protection Act for the exceedingly rare cases when a baby is born alive after an abortion, or born severely premature.

Opponents say it was misleading and unnecessary, since infanticide already is illegal.

Hillary-Anne Crosby, campaign coordinator and communications lead for the No on LR-131 campaign, said there are tragic situations when infants are born with fatal health conditions.

Families can make choices in these situations, such as to hold the infant or baptize and read last rites.

But she said LR-131 would have mandated "life saving care," which would have meant taking an infant away from its parents.

"We're certainly excited," said Crosby, "but more so just relieved on behalf of those providers that would have been torn between, 'Do I honor and respect a family's wishes or do I obey a law that I know to be cruel and unethical?'"

If the measure had passed, health-care providers found to have violated the law faced fines up to $50,000 and 20 years in prison.

While the measure has been lumped in with other abortion measures across the country, it was referred to the ballot by the 2021 Montana Legislature before the Dobbs Supreme Court case allowing states to decide on abortion. It would not have directly affected access to abortion.

Crosby said unfortunately, the lawmakers that crafted this legislative referendum did not consult with the people who would have been impacted.

"They should have reached out to these experts," said Crosby, "they should have reached out to these families to better understand what kind of support they need and what kind of laws just further traumatize them, and I really hope that that was a lesson that they took away, in that you cannot legislate what you're not even willing to try to understand."

Even with the Dobbs ruling, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled the state Constitution protects abortion access under its right to privacy.

However, now that Republicans have a supermajority in the Legislature, lawmakers could move to change this in 2023.

Crosby said she believes the "no" vote on LR-131 should be a sign that Montanans don't want this kind of change.

"We do really think that LR-131 sent a pretty clear message that Montanans value our privacy and we value our private medical decisions," said Crosby. "So hopefully they'll take that cue and they will trust and respect and support Montanans' wishes. But if not, we'll be there to remind them."

Illinois serves as a crucial access point for abortion services and sees the most out-of-state patients in the country.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has seen the largest increase in abortion services than any other state. About 25% of its patients are from out-of-state.

Julie Uhal, program manager of strategic initiatives and impact measurement for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said they planned for an initial surge but sustained high patient volume has strained their resources. She explained they saw up to a dozen out-of-state patients per month before Roe was overturned.

"We're seeing 800, 900, 1,000 out-of-state patients every single month," Uhal reported. "That hasn't changed. That's remained constant for three years now because abortion bans don't stop the need for abortion care. They just make it more difficult for people to access."

Uhal pointed out many out-of-state patients are uninsured or have insurance in other states which cannot be used in Illinois. Combined with rising health care costs, lower reimbursement rates and threats to Medicaid, she said Planned Parenthood faces financial difficulties, which have already forced them to close four clinics this year.

Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of sexual and reproductive health care in the state. More than 40% of local patients use Medicaid to cover the cost of services, which in addition to abortion care includes birth control, cancer screenings, STI treatment and prenatal and gender-affirming care. Without Medicaid funding, Planned Parenthood of Illinois said it would need about $16 million a year to continue providing services at its current rate.

"A lot of people don't realize that many Planned Parenthood clinics are in areas that are otherwise health care provider deserts for access," Uhal emphasized. "For a lot of people, going in for a birth control appointment might be the only time they see a doctor that year."

Uhal stressed the burden of accessing common health care continues to be placed on the patient since states banned abortion services. The recent Supreme Court ruling which set a precedent to allow states to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid will only worsen the burden. She added helping patients to navigate emotional and logistic barriers to care has been just as important as providing them with care.

"One in four people that can get pregnant will have an abortion at some point in their lifetime," Uhal explained. "So it's really important for people to know that they're not alone. There shouldn't be as much shame and stigma surrounding this as there is."

Planned Parenthood of Illinois opened the Carbondale Health Center in 2023 to help meet the increased demand for services, particularly for patients traveling from the South. About 90% of patients there come from out-of-state.


get more stories like this via email

Abortion rights advocates in Kentucky are concerned as the Department of Health and Human Services has revoked a policy requiring hospitals to provide abortion care in emergency situations.

Known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the rule offered federal protection for the procedure, particularly in Kentucky and other red states with near total abortion bans.

Tamarra Wieder, Kentucky state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said stripping away protection will be catastrophic for women in rural counties who already face barriers to care.

"We know in a state like Kentucky that people have already turned up at emergency rooms because of our abortion restrictions," Wieder pointed out. "Doctors have been forced to wait until patients were at life-threatening situations, sepsis, hemorrhage, before they are able to provide care."

According to the National Institutes of Health, pregnancy complications are the fifth-most common reason women of reproductive age visit the emergency room.

Weider added rural communities across the Commonwealth suffer the nation's worst family planning and sexual health outcomes and continue to struggle with access to safe and convenient obstetric and reproductive health care.

"I think it's really important to note that 57% of Kentucky's rural hospitals no longer offer obstetric services, 57%," Weider emphasized.

Kentucky's Human Life Protection Act, passed by lawmakers in 2019, banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother and it went into effect immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. The same year, voters in the Commonwealth rejected a ballot measure which would have amended the state constitution to explicitly deny the right to an abortion.

Arizona doctors have filed a lawsuit to overturn a set of restrictions which they argue interfere with access to abortion care. Arizona voters last year passed Proposition 139 which enshrined the fundamental right to an abortion, up until fetal viability, in the state's constitution.

Gail Deady, senior attorney, Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case, explained that the abortion rights that were secured because of the measure do not go into effect automatically, and existing laws that limit access must be challenged before they can be struck down under Prop 139.

"This lawsuit is intended to honor the will of the voters and it looks to strike down the most onerous abortion restrictions that are currently on the books in Arizona," she said. "The theory behind this case is that these restrictions do not have any medical basis, they do not make abortions safer."

Deady explained that some of the restrictions include forcing doctors to turn away patients if they suspect a fetal genetic diagnosis is the reason for a patient seeking care, requiring patients to wait at least 24 hours before obtaining abortion care, and banning the use of telehealth for abortion. Mailing abortion pills - like mifepristone - is also prohibited. Conservative, anti-abortion advocates have expressed support for the restrictions, its's unclear if they'll oppose the lawsuit.

Deady argues many Arizonans are facing negative consequences as a result of the laws. She adds that it also means a delay in receiving the care most Arizonans supported last year, and added that Arizona has what she calls a "two-trip" law which requires patients make two separate visits to a clinic.

"Just to hear mandatory, state-scripted information about abortion that often is not medically correct, it spreads misinformation and is designed to make people feel ashamed of the decision that they've made which has now been recognized as a constitutional right in Arizona," she explained.

Deady said her organization is currently advocating for the restrictions to be blocked during litigation. The state attorney generals' office is currently examining the complaint.