Court Opinion

ID: 9394201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 17:06:15.016741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.846426
License: Public Domain

05/12/2023

                                SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE1
                                                                                           Case Number: DA 22-0207

2023 MT 82, DA 22-0207: HELEN WEEMS AND JANE DOE, Plaintiffs and
Appellees, v. STATE OF MONTANA, by and through AUSTIN KNUDSEN, in his
official capacity as Attorney General; and TRAVIS AHNER, in his official capacity
as County Attorney for Flathead County, Defendants and Appellants.

In a unanimous decision, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a District Court’s ruling that
§ 50-20-109(1)(a), MCA, unconstitutionally interfered with a women’s right of privacy,
guaranteed by the Montana Constitution, to seek abortion care from a qualified provider.

This case arises from § 50-20-109(1)(a) (2005), MCA, which makes it a felony for any
licensed or competent health care provider, except physicians and physician assistants, to
provide abortion care.

The District Court concluded that abortion care provided by Advanced Practice Registered
Nurses (APRNs) is safe and, therefore, § 50-20-109(1)(a), MCA, is unconstitutional
because it interferes with a woman’s right to seek abortion care from a qualified health
provider. The District Court cited the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Armstrong v.
State, which held that the Montana Constitution guarantees a woman a fundamental right
of privacy to seek abortion care from a qualified health care provider of her choosing,
absent a clear demonstration of a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk.

Helen Weems and Jane Doe (Plaintiffs) are licensed APRNs in family practice and
midwifery, respectively. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of § 50-20-109(1)(a),
MCA, claiming it violates a woman’s fundamental right of privacy to seek abortion care
from a qualified health care provider of her choosing.

The State argued it has the authority to provide for the general health and safety of
Montanans and that abortion care presents a risk of harm beyond what an APRN is capable
of handling. The parties presented extensive expert medical testimony to the District Court
concerning whether abortion care provided by APRNs presents an increased risk of harm
to women.

Based on overwhelming evidence produced in the trial court record that APRNs provide
safe and effective abortion care, the Court concluded there was no genuine dispute of fact
that APRNs are qualified health care providers of abortion care. The record was devoid of
any evidence that APRNs providing abortion care would present a bona fide health risk
acknowledged by the medical community. The evidence established that not only do
APRNs provide services requiring similar skills to those required for abortion care, but

1
 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the
Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent.
APRNs also provide health care services that are more complex than early abortion care.
The Court recognized the State’s general and inherent authority to regulate for the health
and safety of its citizens; however, applying Armstrong, the Court concluded that
§ 50-20-109(1)(a), MCA, violated a women’s fundamental right of privacy guaranteed by
the Montana Constitution to seek health care from a provider of her choosing because the
record undisputedly established that APRNs were qualified providers of abortion care.
Under this decision, Montanans have the right to seek abortion care from certified APRNs.

                                            2