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."

Reproductive rights advocates are cheering Minnesota's new law centering around abortion access. Supporters predict it could help in other ways for rural patients.

Yesterday, Gov. Tim Walz signed the Protect Reproductive Options Act, making Minnesota the first state this year to firmly enshrine abortion rights since last summer's U.S. Supreme Court decision, which overturned federal protections.

The state already had legal safeguards from a mid-1990s state Supreme Court ruling.

Becky Twamley, board president of the Reproductive Health Alliance, said women in rural regions still have trouble getting reproductive care, even when meeting with local health providers.

"Women may go to a physician, and they won't even prescribe contraception, much less talk about what their other options are," Twamley pointed out.

She acknowledged some instances are still likely to occur, but added the new law might also quell some of the misinformation floating around reproductive care. The law states Minnesota residents have a fundamental right to options. Republican lawmakers, who are in the minority this session, have argued the law is too extreme.

Anti-abortion groups often cite personal religious beliefs in wanting to implement restrictions. But Twamley suggested the issue has become so divisive, it is often reduced to talking points that do not address the complexities of reproductive care.

"There's a lot of hyperbole around it," Twamley asserted. "I think we need to counter that with facts."

The group Power to Decide said nearly 300,000 women who are at or below the poverty level in Minnesota live in so-called "contraceptive deserts."

Backers of Minnesota's new protections say they are also vital since many other Midwestern states either now have abortion bans in place or are poised to enact them.

The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office has announced the launch of a new hotline for abortion-care providers and people seeking confidential legal advice.

The Abortion Legal Hotline will offer help accessing abortion-care resources for both residents and people traveling to the Commonwealth for abortion services.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Ma., reminded people there is no shame in having an abortion or seeking information regarding one's own health care.

"The only shame is that there are unrelenting, coordinated legislative efforts and forces at work to deny you that which is your fundamental human right, and that is access to health care," Pressley asserted.

The hotline will be run by Reproductive Equity Now, the Women's Bar Foundation and five law firms offering pro bono services, and can be reached at 1-833-309-6301.

Andrea Campbell, Attorney General, joined Pressley in announcing the new hotline and the Commonwealth's commitment to protecting abortion rights, and both drew attention to the collective grief surrounding Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man killed by police in Memphis earlier this month.

Campbell noted reproductive justice is about more than access to abortion.

"But it is about the right to parent a child in a safe and healthy community, and police violence interferes with that right," Campbell contended.

Following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year, more than a dozen states moved to ban or restrict access to legal abortion care.

In Massachusetts, lawmakers passed one of the strongest shield laws protecting abortion providers, as well as access to care for both residents and those who cross state lines to access health care services.

New York pharmacists would be able to dispense abortion medication under newly proposed legislation, and a person could get the prescription from a physician online or by mail.

This comes after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance allowing retail pharmacies to sell abortion pills.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortions made up 54% of all abortions in the country in 2020.

State Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, the bill's author, said it hasn't been filed yet, but if it passes, it should help people who don't want to visit an abortion clinic.

"If you can walk into a pharmacy and get this medication over the counter, you're much more likely to do it," she said. "Not everybody's going to go to a provider; not everyone feels comfortable. And providers are doing this with telehealth, so it doesn't require an exam."

The bill is part of a larger push by New York elected officials to expand abortion services in the state. In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended federal abortion rights last June, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a far-reaching package of legislation to improve access, as well as $35 million allocated to support abortion providers in New York State's 2022 budget.

While the bill is still in its earliest stages, Paulin said she's ready to meet whatever challenges come when it is filed. Abortion opponents in New York have encouraged such alternatives as better family services and making adoption easier.

Paulin said she knows the work won't end with this bill, adding that she is eager to work on whatever comes next.

"I'm working closely with advocate groups, like Planned Parenthood and ACOG, so if barriers come up, we will immediately address them," she said. "I think right now, we're just exploring some of those barriers and we will be putting legislation in shortly to alleviate them."

Other upcoming legislation would have all SUNY and CUNY colleges and universities offer abortion care, new protections of personal data for anyone seeking an abortion, and increased doctor reimbursement rates for reproductive health-care services.