Montana blocks law requiring abortion clinics be licensed

.

Indiana Abortion
A Planned Parenthood sign is displayed on the outside of a clinic during a news conference, Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023, in Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Darron Cummings) Darron Cummings/AP

Montana blocks law requiring abortion clinics be licensed

Video Embed

A Montana judge blocked a law requiring abortion clinics to be licensed.

Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Christopher Abbott issued a temporary restraining order against the law, set to go into practice Saturday, on the grounds that Montana has not yet developed a process by which clinics could become licensed. The move is temporary, and it is “aimed at protecting the parties’ positions until a hearing can be held.”

UAW STRIKE: FOUR-DAY WORKWEEK FAVORED BY UNION GAINING IN POPULARITY

The bill being blocked, sponsored by state Rep. Lola Sheldon-Gallowa, states, “A person may not operate or advertise the operation of an abortion clinic unless the person is licensed by the department.”

All Families Healthcare, Blue Mountain Clinic, and Helen Weems filed a lawsuit to block the bill before it went into effect Saturday. Abbott approved the temporary injunction and asked that Montana first outline the rules by which clinics can be licensed.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Before licenses can be issued, the Department must first promulgate rules,” Abbott wrote. “The department, however, has neither adopted nor even publicly proposed temporary or final rules to implement H.B. 937, nor has it otherwise given providers guidance on how they can avoid violations of Section 2(1) in the interim.

“While there may or may not prove to be a compelling state interest in licensing abortion clinics, a question for another day, there is no compelling interest in imposing a mandatory licensure regime while issuing no licenses,” he continued. “Nor can the court avoid the constitutional problems with Section 2(1) as written by engrafting onto it an implied impossibility defense, because that would require the court to ‘insert what has been omitted.’”

© 2023 Washington Examiner

Related Content