LR-131: Montana could establish law that makes any infant born alive a legal person
Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo; Insider
- Legislative Referendum 131 will add a statute that protects "born-alive" infants.
- Proponents say that the law is necessary to preserve infant life after birth.
- Opponents say the measure is misleading and infringes on the right of providers to make medical decisions.
A "yes" on LR-131 will create a statute that establishes any infant born alive as a legal person and require healthcare providers to try to preserve the life of said infant.
Ballot measure details
The state of Montana is set to vote on a controversial amendment that would establish any infant born alive, including infants born alive as a result of abortion, must have its life preserved by medical staff.
The Republican-led Montana State Legislature voted to add LR-131 to the November ballot.
The proposed measure defines a "born-alive" infant as one who has been removed from a womb via abortion, natural or induced labor, or C-section and shows signs of "breathes, has a beating heart, or has definite movement of voluntary muscles" at any stage of development.
The proposed law would also require medical staff to provide care to keep the infant alive and report the born-alive infant. If they fail to do so, they face a $50,000 fine and/or 20 years of imprisonment.
Montana law already clarifies that infanticide is illegal.
Support and opposition
Supporters for the measure include GOP Governor Greg Gianforte, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and other pro-life groups, who argue that the law will make clear that the state supports infant life after failed abortions.
No on LR-131 is leading the campaign against this ballot measure and includes Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Montana Medical Association, and OB/GYNs across the state.
Those opposed say the amendment will mean that parents whose children are born with terminal fetal abnormalities cannot see their infants before they die because of mandated treatments.
They also argue that the law will put an unnecessary burden on healthcare providers who try to make the best decisions for their patients.