Oppose HB50- Montana Legislature 2025

Summary of HB 50

HB 50 is a bill aimed at providing protections for pregnant women with substance use disorder. It amends Montana’s Help Save Lives from Overdose Act to:

1. Extend Good Samaritan protections to pregnant and postpartum women seeking substance use treatment or prenatal/postnatal care.

2. Prevent criminal prosecution or child welfare actions based solely on a parent's positive drug test.

3. Ensure that medical treatment for substance use disorder or pregnancy does not result in legal consequences for the mother.

The bill appears to be an effort to encourage pregnant women with substance use disorders to seek medical care without fear of prosecution.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to House Bill 50 (HB 50) in its current form. 

While I recognize the bill’s intention to protect pregnant women with substance use disorders from unnecessary legal consequences, the lack of clarity in its provisions creates serious risks for the constitutional rights of Montanans, particularly regarding bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and medical privacy.

Montana voters have made their stance clear on personal medical decision-making and bodily autonomy through the recently passed constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion. 

The Montana Constitution (Article II, Section 10) also guarantees the right to privacy, which has long been interpreted to protect medical decisions from government interference. 

HB 50, as written, could undermine these fundamental rights.

Montana’s 2024 Constitutional Amendment on Abortion

The new constitutional amendment, approved by Montana voters in November 2024, establishes an explicit right to abortion in the Montana Constitution. 

• Guarantees the right to make and carry out decisions regarding one’s pregnancy, including abortion.

• Prohibits government interference in abortion access before fetal viability.

• Allows restrictions after viability, except when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.

Potential Conflict Between HB 50 and the New Amendment

While HB 50 does not explicitly restrict abortion, it could create unintended legal ambiguities that indirectly interfere with bodily autonomy and pregnancy-related healthcare.

1. Lack of Clarity on the Intersection of Substance Use and Pregnancy Termination

• HB 50 protects pregnant women with substance use disorders from criminal prosecution, but it does not explicitly clarify whether this protection extends to those seeking an abortion while using substances.

• Montana voters clearly rejected government interference in pregnancy-related medical decisions by passing an amendment to explicitly protect abortion rights. However, HB 50 introduces uncertainty regarding the legal status of pregnant individuals who use substances—and whether their pregnancy decisions, including abortion, could be subjected to government oversight.

• If a woman is using substances and seeks an abortion, could medical providers or law enforcement still investigate her?

• The Montana Constitution now guarantees the right to make decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including abortion—but HB 50 does not make clear how substance use interacts with that right.

2. Potential for Overreach in Child Welfare Investigations

• The bill prevents child welfare agencies from using a single positive drug test to justify removing a child but does not prevent investigations altogether.

• If a pregnant person is using substances and considering abortion, could child protective services intervene, claiming concern for fetal welfare?

• Montana’s constitutional amendment guarantees the right to carry out abortion decisions, meaning state intervention based on fetal welfare would directly conflict with the new amendment.

• If child protective services or law enforcement use HB 50 to justify investigations into pregnant people based on their healthcare choices, it would violate both the Montana Constitution’s Right to Privacy and the newly established constitutional right to abortion.

• Similar laws in other states have led to fetal surveillance, criminalization of pregnancy outcomes, and unjust prosecutions of pregnant people—disproportionately affecting low-income individuals and communities of color.

Montana must not follow the path of states that have weaponized vague legal language to justify anti-abortion and anti-privacy policies.

HB 50 Creates Legal Ambiguities That Could Lead to Government Overreach

While HB 50 protects pregnant women and postpartum mothers from criminal prosecution and certain child welfare actions solely based on drug use, it fails to explicitly protect reproductive healthcare decisions, including abortion.

• If a pregnant individual seeks an abortion while using substances, could medical providers report them? Could this lead to investigations by law enforcement or child protective services?

• Would state agencies be allowed to interfere with an individual’s medical choices under the guise of “protecting the fetus” despite the constitutional guarantee of abortion rights?

Without explicit protections, HB 50 could be misinterpreted or misused to justify government surveillance and intervention in pregnancy-related healthcare decisions—a direct conflict with Montana’s constitutional protections.

3. Possible Erosion of Medical Confidentiality in Pregnancy Care

• HB 50 encourages pregnant women to seek medical care, but if medical professionals report a patient’s substance use, could that information be used to interfere with reproductive decisions?

• The Montana Constitution protects against government intervention in pregnancy decisions, which means law enforcement or child protective services using medical information against a patient may be unconstitutional.

• The Montana Constitution (Article II, Section 10) states that “the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

• HB 50 does not make clear safeguards against the potential misuse of medical information collected from pregnant and postpartum women.

• Could medical records from substance use treatment be used to justify government intervention in reproductive healthcare decisions?

• Would a positive drug test be used as a justification for questioning a pregnant person’s medical choices, even if they are seeking an abortion?

Without stronger language explicitly protecting medical confidentiality, HB 50 may enable violations of Montana’s Right to Privacy and create dangerous legal precedents.

Does HB 50 Violate Montana’s Existing Right to Bodily Autonomy?

Montana’s Constitution has long upheld strong protections for bodily autonomy through its Right to Privacy Clause (Article II, Section 10):

• “The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

How HB 50 Could Challenge This Right

• If law enforcement or child protective services use HB 50 to justify surveillance or investigation of pregnant women’s substance use, it could be seen as an infringement on personal privacy.

• The Right to Privacy Clause means medical decisions—including substance use treatment during pregnancy—should remain confidential.

• If Montana agencies use this bill as a loophole to monitor or restrict pregnancy-related healthcare decisions, it would conflict with the Montana Constitution’s privacy protections.

the Potential to Conflict with Montana’s Constitutional Protections

While HB 50 is not an outright abortion ban, its vague language and potential for unintended enforcement issues could conflict with the newly enshrined abortion rights and privacy protections in the Montana Constitution.

 What HB 50 Does Well:

• Encourages pregnant women with substance use disorders to seek care without fear of criminal prosecution.

• Protects postpartum women from legal repercussions up to 12 months after childbirth.

• Prevents child removal solely based on a parent’s drug test.

Potential Conflicts with Montana’s Constitutional Protections:

• Creates legal uncertainty about whether law enforcement or child protective services could still interfere with pregnancy-related decisions.

• Fails to clarify protections for pregnant individuals who seek abortions while using substances.

• Could be misused to justify government oversight of pregnancy, which contradicts Montana’s constitutional right to privacy.

  
  

To avoid constitutional challenges, lawmakers should:

1. Clarify that HB 50 does not allow state intervention in pregnancy-related healthcare decisions, including abortion.

2. Ensure that medical records of pregnant individuals are protected under Montana’s Right to Privacy.

3. Amend the bill to explicitly state that it does not limit the newly established constitutional right to abortion.