A brother-and-sister duo representing the Flathead Valley in the Montana Legislature introduced two bills aimed at preventing abortions during a committee hearing Wednesday, joining other GOP lawmakers who see a rare opportunity to enact abortion limits under the state's new Republican governor.

Rep. Matt Regier, whose district covers the area between Evergreen and Columbia Falls, introduced House Bill 167, known as the Montana Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. If passed by both chambers of the Legislature and approved by voters, the bill would require medical providers to attempt life-saving efforts if a fetus shows signs of life after an abortion, or face fines and prison time.

"This goes right down to, are we going to stand for life? Or are we going to throw it away?" Regier said during Wednesday's hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Opponents of the bill, including reproductive rights advocates and Montana's doctors association, said it would interfere in doctor-patient relationships, criminalize physicians who perform abortions and attempt to codify how an aborted fetus or premature infant is treated, regardless of its likelihood of survival.

The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act has failed in past legislative sessions. Former Kalispell Sen. Al Olszewski, a practicing orthopedic surgeon, sponsored a version of the bill in 2019. It passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Legislature but was vetoed by former Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.

New Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte is an abortion opponent who co-sponsored similar federal legislation when he represented Montana in Congress. But this year, Regier added language to the state bill that would put the question to voters in November 2022, circumventing the governor.

Asked this week if Gianforte would support the abortion bills, a spokeswoman told the Associated Press the governor "believes all life is precious and must be protected, and he will carefully review any bill the Legislature sends to his desk."

Testifying in favor of the bill, Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, said Montana already has a law that criminalizes doctors who "purposely, knowingly or negligently" cause the death of a premature infant, but other states go beyond that.

"At least 18 states have laws creating a specific affirmative duty for physicians to provide medical care and treatment to born-alive infants at any stage of development," Foster said.

Greg Dorrington, a lobbyist for the Montana Medical Association, said the group opposes any bill that legislates or criminalizes the practice of medicine, regardless of views on abortion. He was met with questions by Kalispell Rep. Derek Skees and Billings Rep. Barry Usher, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

"I think there's a difference between medical ethics and codifying that in statute, what action you're supposed to take," Dorrington said. "Questions about whether the individual is going to last long after birth, in the context that this bill is addressing, these are extremely difficult questions. We just don't think that the Legislature or statute should get in the way of a physician exercising their professional medical judgment and performing pursuant to their ethical duties and obligations."

REP. AMY Regier, who this month began her first term representing a district northwest of Kalispell, introduced House Bill 140, which would require abortion providers to offer women the opportunity to view an ultrasound of their pregnancies and listen to fetal heart sounds. The bill also would require women to sign an acknowledgement that they have accepted or refused that offer.

Regier said it's a matter of "informed consent."

"The key to this bill is 'offer.' The patient is not required to view or hear. The provider is required to offer the option," she said. "Abortion is a choice in this country. As in many choices made in life, information helps us make decisions. Informed decision-making will provide for less regret in the future."

Laurel Hesse, legislative program manager with the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, testified against the bill Wednesday, saying it's a veiled attempt to discourage women from following through with abortions, and it likely would not survive legal challenges.

"Regardless of whether it's an offer or a requirement for those procedures, the constitutional issues remain the same," Hesse said. "There is no health-based justification for this particular bill and this particular insertion into the doctor-patient relationship."

If the law is enacted, Hesse said, "the Montana courts may very well see through the professed health rationale of HB-140 and instead recognize that the bill is an attempt to dissuade women from accessing constitutionally protected health care."

Bullock also vetoed the bill Amy Regier is sponsoring in 2019, saying it's "about harassing and shaming women for choosing abortion and questioning women's ability to make their own decisions."

THE HOUSE Judiciary Committee heard testimony on two other anti-abortion bills on Monday. One, sponsored by Rep. Lola Sheldon-Galloway, R-Great Falls, would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and the other, sponsored by Rep. Sharon Greef, R-Florence, would restrict access to abortion pills.

The committee voted Thursday to advance all four bills to votes on the House floor, with all committee Republicans voting in favor of the bills and all committee Democrats opposed.

The Montana Reproductive Rights Coalition – which includes Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, the ACLU of Montana and more than a dozen other organizations – characterized the legislation as unconstitutional and invasive attacks on women's health care.

"This week's bills alternately criminalize doctors, violate women’s privacy, disrespect the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, force the state to pay for materials that lie to Montanans, and shame women for seeking abortion," the coalition said in a statement. "None of which would, as they claim, make patients any more safe than they already are under the care of skilled reproductive health providers. While the bills make varying arguments, they all share the same ultimate goal: outlawing safe, legal, constitutionally protected abortion entirely, and creating unnecessary barriers to health care."

Reporter Chad Sokol can be reached at 758-4434 or csokol@dailyinterlake.com