By Emma White | UM Legislative News Service, University of Montana School of Journalism

Lawmakers Advance Bills Defining Sex as Binary, Prohibiting Punishment for Students Who Don’t Acknowledge Pronouns or Chosen Name

HELENA – Legislators in the House and Senate passed bills this week that define sex as a binary and reduce any punishment of individuals at schools for not acknowledging pronouns and chosen names other than those assigned at birth.

Senate Bill 437, which earlier passed in the Senate with a 31-18 vote, is one of a series of bills passed this session that proponents say are clarifying definitions under law, and opponents say are reducing the rights of the transgender community. SB 437 passed the House with a 55-44 vote last week, and now heads to the governor’s desk for final approval.

Rep. Neil Duram, R-Eureka, spoke in support of the bill, saying that while some human characteristics are mutable, sex is fixed.

“The issue about sex is not a spectrum issue,” Duram said. “Whether it offends you or not, it’s not a spectrum issue, it’s, it’s binary. It’s either or.”

Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, the carrier of the bill in the House, added that it is the Legislature’s duty to provide clarity in definitions such as these.

“I do think that this really does come down to definitions, and that’s our job,” Deming said. “And I think some of these definitions are very important for the work that we do and the state that we all live in, both legal and medical issues.”

But Rep. SJ Howell, D-Missoula, said these bills have come through the chamber before, and the concept of sex as a binary has been continually disproven by the medical professionals who come to testify. They added that the government should not define who people are.

“Two years ago, almost to the day I stood on this floor debating this bill, and I said that I thought Montana is big enough for all of us, big enough for the people who fit neatly into these convoluted definitions and big enough for those of us who don’t,” Howell said. “big enough, not just in acreage, but in character. Most days, I still believe that.”

Rep. Sherry Essmann, R-Billings, joined Howell in opposing the bill. She said there are more pressing issues that the Legislature should be spending its time on, such as property taxes and income taxes.

“This is another one of those bills,” Essmann said. “I didn’t have one single constituent say to me, go to Helena and redefine sex and redefine gender and make sure that you change every single section of our MCA that mentions anything regarding sex and gender.”

The Senate, meanwhile, passed a bill that would prevent teachers from disciplining students if they refuse to use a student’s chosen pronouns, or a name other than their given name.

House Bill 400, sponsored by Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, and carried in the Senate by Sen. Theresa Manzella, R-Hamilton, sparked a heated debate in the Senate before passing with a 28-20 vote on April 11. That bill also now heads to the governor’s desk for his consideration.

Manzella said the bill aims to protect students’ First Amendment rights in the classroom by not compelling them to use pronouns if that practice goes against their beliefs.

“Freedom of speech and religion includes freedom not to endorse messages contrary to our sincerely held beliefs,” Manzella said. “No one should be forced to say things that violate their sincerely held beliefs.”

Sen. Daniel Emrich, R-Great Falls, joined Manzella in supporting the bill. He said the measure will prevent compelled speech in the classroom that goes against the values of students.

“I would just like to point out that this bill not only protects free speech, but also protects individuals from being compelled to speak,” Emrich said. “If you’re in a situation where those in authority over you are forcing you to say something against your will, that violates the fundamental principles of this country.”

But Sen. Laura Smith, D-Helena, said she had never received so many emails from teachers concerned about a bill, and she was “sad to see this bill up on the board today.” She said it will impact teachers’ ability to prevent bullying in the classroom, and hamper creating a safe environment for kids to learn and grow.

“This one struck me as particularly ironic – enact the ‘Free to Speak Act.’ And my request would be a no vote, so that kids, every type of kid in our community, is free to learn,” Smith said.

Sen. Cora Neumann, D-Bozeman, spoke in opposition as well, telling legislators to see the bill for what she said it is: an anti-trans bill. She echoed Essmann’s comments from the House, saying she was disappointed to have to come and debate another bill about LGBTQ issues instead of property taxes and the other issues that Montanans are facing.

“We heard earlier in the session, every bill draft costs us $3,000,” Neumann said. “Every day in this legislative body costs the state of Montana $40,000. We have heard 25 anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ bills. What are we doing here? This is not our job. This is not what the people of Montana asked for, this is horrible. We have young people here in the front, and we are standing up to defend bullying? This makes me sick.”

House Approves Continuous Eligibility Healthy Montana Kids

The House of Representatives passed a bill on April 8 that would provide continuous eligibility for two years for kids younger than six enrolled in the Healthy Montana Kids program. The sponsor says it will address gaps in health insurance coverage for children.

The current system for the free or low-cost health insurance program for low-income families requires families to reapply for eligibility every year. Rep. Ed Stafman, D-Bozeman, said this can be difficult for busy families, leaving children in a back-and-forth of losing and regaining coverage. Stafman said continuous enrollment is crucial, particularly after 15 percent of Montana children covered under Medicaid or Healthy Montana Kids lost their coverage in the redetermination process after COVID. 

Stafman said House Bill 185 focuses on younger kids because that is when their development is most critical.

“We know that 90 percent of brain cells are grown in those years,” Stafman said. “Missed well-baby visits and regular medical care often result in more ER visits, problems that could have been prevented with well-childcare – less school readiness, and a host of other problems.”

But Rep. Jane Gillette, R-Three Forks, said in a previous debate on the bill that the process of redetermination is important to make sure that when a family’s income or insurance situation changes, the state can be relieved of their insurance costs.

“It probably wouldn’t surprise you that a lot of people don’t report changes in their incomes,” Gillete said. “You know, things just, life gets busy. They just don’t get around to reporting changes in their income. So that’s why the redetermination process is important.”

The bill passed the House with a 55-42 vote and awaits judgment in the Senate.

Lawmakers Advance A Bill Defining Personhood

A bill that would ask voters to vote on a constitutional amendment to define personhood as starting at conception sparked contentious debate in the Senate Judiciary Committee before ultimately advancing to the full Senate.

Sponsored by Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel, House Bill 318  is one of the few surviving bills seeking to restrict abortion access in the state. The bill would start the process of amending Montana’s Constitution to define a fetus as a living being by putting the issue to voters via ballot in the November 2026 election.

Erin Laws, representing the Montana Medical Freedom Alliance, spoke in support of HB 316, saying that an embryo has unique DNA after fertilization and is therefore a unique individual.

“The fetus has inherent rights and protections similar to born individuals,” Laws said. “They have no less value than those living outside the womb. We have a moral and legal obligation to safeguard life inside the womb.”

But opponents of the bill argue that abortion is a right that Montanans strongly supported in the last election with the passage of CI-128. Taryn Van Steeland, representing Forward Montana, said the bill would also create a “slippery legal definition of personhood” that could impact IVF treatments, emergency contraception, miscarriage management and general reproductive healthcare during pregnancy.

“It provides no framework in the case of violation, leading us to worry about whether pregnant women or doctors who are just trying to give or receive routine healthcare will be prosecuted,” Van Steeland said. “Montanans deserve the right to comprehensive reproductive care without government interference.”

HB 316 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 5-3 vote, and awaits debate on the Senate floor.

Bill Would Clarify State Agencies’ Consultation with Tribal Governments

Legislators are deliberating a bill that proponents say will provide a much-needed definition and framework for consultation between the state and tribal governments, while opponents say it will add cumbersome government regulations to state agencies.

Senate Bill 379, sponsored by Sen. Susan Webber, D-Browning, would require all state agencies to have a written consultation policy, a definition of consultation, and an employee designated as a tribal liaison. Webber said during her work with the Interim State Tribal Relations Committee, she repeatedly heard that the lack of a concrete definition of tribal consultation is leading to misunderstandings and a lack of follow-through on state policies that require tribal input.

“We just kept seeing over and over that we had an issue on what the definition of tribal consultation is on both sides. It’s not just state or tribal, but this is building a relationship,” Webber said.

But Sean Steinebach, representing Sun Mountain Lumber and the Montana Logging Association, said the policy could hinder the ability of state agencies to make timely decisions on environmental issues.

“The language is vague and sets unclear expectations that could lead to costly disagreements over whether consultation was sufficient or whether agreement should have been achieved, all while delaying or halting critical forest management projects,” Steinebach said.

SB 379 passed the Senate with a 27-21 vote before the hearing in the House State Administration Committee on April 9.

Bill to Prevent Vaping in Indoor Spaces Passes House

A bill to add vaping as prohibited under the Clean Indoor Air Act is headed to the Senate after passing the House last week, with proponents saying it will help to address an issue in Montana’s youth, and opponents saying the bill will not be effective in preventing vaping in kids.

Carrier of Senate Bill 390,  Rep. George Nikolakakos, R-Great Falls, said the number of children and health organizations who came to testify in support at the bill’s committee hearing showed the need for the addition. He said the issue of vaping in Montana is two-fold: health and cultural.

“I want the freedom for people to do it in their houses, in their cars, outside where it’s not affecting others, but when young children are watching adults and role models smoking bubble gum vapes openly and anywhere where the Clean Indoor Air Act would be effective, we’re telling them it’s OK and it’s good,” Nikolakakos said. 

But Rep. Jedediah Hinkle, R-Belgrade, said vaping is very different than smoking, and should not be treated the same. He said similar bills have died in previous sessions, and he recommended a no-vote for this one as well.

“Vapor is not smoking, it should not be included in here,” Hinkle said. “We put this bill down way back then and apparently it keeps popping up, and now I think we need to put it down again.”

Rep. Curtis Schomer, R-Billings, joined Hinkle in opposition, saying he talked to some of the kids who came to testify and got the impression that the bill would not be effective in addressing the vaping problem in Montana’s youth. Schomer said he asked one of the kids how vaping could be such a problem in their schools when vapes are illegal for minors to purchase.

“You know what that child said to me? ‘To us, laws are just a piece of paper,’” Schomer said.

Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula, responded to Schomer’s statement, saying that while the access problem is not something that the legislature can entirely fix, the “desirability” is something that this law could influence. What she heard in the hearing, Zephyr said, was that the Clean Indoor Air Act reduced smoking rates significantly because kids weren’t constantly exposed to it.

“That reduction was not about access, if a high schooler could go bum a cigarette off of somebody on a convenience store corner,” Zephyr said. “The reason it dropped is because suddenly they weren’t seeing it day in and day out.”

SB 390 passed the House 64-35 on April 11, and now returns to the Senate with amendments.

Senate Approves Tightening Voter Residency Requirements

The Senate debated and passed a bill last week that would tighten residency requirements for voters, which proponents say will make sure that each county’s voters are a permanent part of the community. But, opponents say the measure will unfairly restrict student voters.

House Bill 413, sponsored by Rep. Jane Gillette, R-Three Forks and carried by Sen. Shelley Vance, R-Belgrade, would mean that a person could not be considered a resident in an election if they live in a community for “temporary work, training, or an educational program,” unless it is their intent to remain in the county permanently. 

The Senate approved the bill on a 30-18 vote and it is now heading to the governor’s desk.

Sen. Janet Ellis, D-Helena, spoke in opposition to the bill, saying it will suppress the votes of students and workers in temporary positions, unless they are positive that they will remain in the county indefinitely.

“What if you’ve never thought about that issue or you’re unsure, you just don’t know? We allow individuals to get a Montana driver’s license if they’ve lived in the state 60 days. That’s pretty clear cut,” Ellis said.

But Vance said especially in local elections, votes from people without knowledge of the community can have large impacts.

“I think certain things may possibly be being passed by uneducated people who really don’t care about our communities,” Vance said. “And this bill is just trying to, it’s not, it’s not closing down anyone’s right to vote. It truly isn’t. It is simply just having people vote where their community is going to be.”

House Bill 413 passed the House in February on a 56-42 vote before moving to the Senate.

Emma White is a reporter with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. White can be reached at emma.white@umconnect.umt.edu