[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6116641,"mediaKeyId","2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9","parentId",2732634,"title","Hands‑free driving bill advances after emotional testimony from victims’ families","audioSeconds",70,"startMs",2475000,"endMs",2545000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9&start=2475&end=2545","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9/thumbnail_2475000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6116641/Montana/Handsfree-driving-bill-advances-after-emotional-testimony-from-victims-families","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116641-9edafe1554327205ea54966dcba39be5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770872497&Signature=IU18ve7K~hCjvX4szMukpjTMmHL1gPuiCht-KVPRI7Pnuahnl7u0ikl7EjOiA2Lln~n7iuw8t8yDuoewlR-90GQSSDAwhWbxkxA2sbWCZqVeNobP470j-9JsnUokawyMUWh4HBW4jxpzAOfGPrxB90MvUYmp55BH8FoTyw1HmogR6Seb-SavBmeW0ge~OPEf~jiz-GMW5lPNwNX7JyOxkGPsjSSYMBaPk5cMEiYB0e~pNvM17XIgiCMozS-fTCIO62PTiNKsVggr7PaBiiEqIQ6deSV-RckIpVpm7tugYWCCt9MM8RbIBJtTEhxGAZ6wlL-Q54MnzxlmDSQUcT3SzQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Montana Legislature","date","2025-03-21T00:00:00Z","article","Senator Sarah Novak sponsored Senate Bill 359, a hands‑free driving measure that would prohibit drivers from holding or using a portable wireless communications device while operating a motor vehicle and require hands‑free interfaces for permitted uses. Novak said the measure is not a total cell‑phone ban but a safety‑focused step to reduce distracted driving.

The hearing included extensive, emotional testimony from family members and emergency responders. Parents of Chloe Worl—whose death in a March 10 wreck was described in testimony—urged passage, saying the other driver was using Snapchat and “never put on her brakes.” Multiple first‑responders, a school‑bus driver who responded to the crash, volunteer firefighters and EMTs described seeing the aftermath of fatal and life‑changing crashes they attributed to driver distraction.

Safety and industry stakeholders supported the bill. The American Property Casualty Insurance Association, AAA, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and insurance and safety groups offered data and policy support; the Alliance emphasized that modern vehicle technologies (voice activation, integrated interfaces) make hands‑free driving feasible. The Department of Transportation’s highway traffic‑safety division presented state figures: between 2013 and 2022, distracted drivers accounted for more than 1,500 serious injuries and more than 1,700 fatalities; 26% of distracted drivers in fatal crashes were phone‑distracted.

Proponents included law‑enforcement organizations and firefighter unions; a high‑school student testified in favor. Committee members asked technical drafting questions about exemptions (for emergency services, CB radio and built‑in vehicle systems) and whether touchscreen interfaces should be covered. Sponsor Novak resisted expanding the bill to cover all in‑vehicle controls, noting the stated goal is to limit handheld phone interaction and encourage hands‑free technology.

The hearing record shows broad emotional testimony and technical discussion about enforcement, exemptions, and the relationship between state and municipal ordinances. Committee members signaled further work to resolve drafting details and timing for enforcement.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary - Friday, Mar 21, 2025 07:59 - 13:04","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 359 would require drivers to use hands‑free systems for mobile devices; the House Judiciary hearing featured emotional testimony from victims’ families and first responders and support from insurance, automotive and safety organizations.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MT, Montana","taxId",77694,"location","Montana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116646,"Committee hears bill to speed return of officers’ firearms seized as evidence",113,2337000,2450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9&start=2337&end=2450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9/thumbnail_2337000.jpg","/articles/6116646/Montana/Committee-hears-bill-to-speed-return-of-officers-firearms-seized-as-evidence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116646-e5a36ab5cdb0b1a1c39f306203a073b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770872497&Signature=NKVduDjw3lZ-0rwvzSYdpxO1eEZvDk5eS03T2ZUpT3Sy90g8JFZnKToxme3lkShNOhcvEJan5jLUyqs7kUAyyaXlaeWosPwm46rNyluI2I271d8Fc4~BxOe7mJDsU4dmtKfZNxn-avZn~MpRH7qasu5gZTXL0Qp707FWG4M8u4wvo0~Dztrvrs5NHZSZXfw77B6l-wbmOQTnjhJMPp7uwVZ~4ks~oa~jFiRBzI2~ep5w7E6uVs-Nl-37YfJaq~8XeUkLjfR6ORgfk7so2cwHrrWiCKjxdtrHrI2SDGGpt7w0Sk0bcbM-5PyTLzMFdTU9veEi2DfxWA5ym~yIseYZjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Denley Logi said Senate Bill 288 would expedite return of law‑enforcement firearms that agencies take into evidence after an officer‑involved shooting or other incident. Supporters told the committee that long evidence holds leave agencies short of issued equipment and that some officers currently must use personal weapons or equipment while awaiting return.

Supporters included law‑enforcement groups and local officials. Former Representative Gordon Hendrick told the committee that counties sometimes wait years—because of lab work, coroner’s inquests and prosecution timetables—before evidence is released and weapons returned. Shelby Demars of the Montana Police Protective Association said the bill adds a “stopgap” to allow return when investigations are complete and no appeals or pending criminal matters require retention.

No opponents or informational witnesses appeared in the provided transcript and the sponsor told the committee the Senate had passed the bill 50‑0 earlier.

Committee questions focused on preserving chain of custody and ensuring the provision did not conflict with ongoing criminal investigations; the sponsor and proponents stressed the bill includes safeguards requiring that any return occur only after evidence tests and internal investigative needs are complete and no criminal charges or appeals are pending.

No committee vote is recorded in the supplied transcript.","Senate Bill 288 would require earlier return of law‑enforcement weapons taken in investigations once active prosecutions or appeals are complete. Supporters said delayed returns impose equipment and financial burdens on small counties; no opponents were recorded in the transcript.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116651,"Bill to roll back 2017 theft penalties draws split testimony on deterrence and prison costs",833,1238000,2071000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9&start=1238&end=2071","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9/thumbnail_1238000.jpg","/articles/6116651/Montana/Bill-to-roll-back-2017-theft-penalties-draws-split-testimony-on-deterrence-and-prison-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116651-b2b77bf04327222c514a622342950b69/orig.mp4?Expires=1770872497&Signature=Nv~~o-2uOyBr4h6c7Y~zBEKc74vH5baxx~qSAmKPs5DHJeMB1V~-bczo7WQ1MHwttmAs3s0JHxw5ymdWXHGfGiWCGDB4zKQ~DEiXGg4wY~ZfoYoJ80IDrW~wH18-2PFNtNylnTiY-~slD1tnZXIOeXBG-~MvCgj4XJoIcEUvH2LOLMj8aRWZIyP~3kA~MU321Cuyk~9U0St4n76nimXK~YbSq9NfklElBrEO2DsdcNP8l~NBT8HKLBDofx4tzw1FlXXtdMS-OT8G-BiZ0AZmCWIlx7YTZXstjfBYw1ObnHt2NW8hZF6L8G0hh3Vq~SU5F5l06vt6JiAR0DnEx0mKWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Barry Usher presented Senate Bill 19 as corrective legislation to reverse parts of House Bill 133 (2017) that, he said, reduced penalties for many theft offenses and unintentionally encouraged repeat retail thefts. The bill would: restore a jailable penalty and higher fine for certain theft thresholds; revise the statutory definition of “common scheme”; and align penalties for related property offenses.

Retail‑industry groups, the Montana Retail Association, chambers of commerce, the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and several county attorneys supported the bill. Brad Griffin of the Montana Retail Association and Lewis and Clark County Attorney Kevin Downs told the committee that retailers had experienced increased organized theft and that misdemeanors under the current law are underreported because they carry no jail exposure.

Opponents included the ACLU of Montana, Catalyst Montana, Montana Budget & Policy Center and local public‑defense and community organizations. Witnesses argued the bill would increase incarceration of low‑level offenders—some stealing to meet basic needs or because of substance use disorders—and would add costs to the state for jail beds and prosecutions. The ACLU cited Department of Justice research that harsher penalties do not reliably deter property crime and urged investment in diversion and social‑service responses.

Representatives asked for data showing retail theft trends. County attorneys and retailers said felony thefts have increased and that misdemeanors are not being tracked consistently because they produce fewer formal filings; opponents countered that increased penalties are an ineffective deterrent for crimes driven by poverty or addiction. The Office of the State Public Defender and the Department of Corrections provided informational testimony focusing on operational impacts: OPD estimated added workload equivalent to multiple full‑time defenders; DOC and advocates raised concerns about bed capacity and costs.

No vote is recorded in the provided transcript. The hearing exposed a familiar legislative tradeoff: law‑enforcement and commerce interests emphasizing deterrence and recovery, and civil‑liberties and fiscal groups stressing downstream fiscal and human‑service costs.","Senate Bill 19 would reverse portions of a 2017 overhaul and reintroduce jailable penalties and higher fines for some thefts. Retailers, sheriffs and county attorneys supported the change; civil‑liberties and fiscal groups warned it would criminalize poverty and increase incarceration costs.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116655,"Bills creating extended liability for gender‑dysphoria treatments draw sharply divided testimony",110,3286000,3396000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9&start=3286&end=3396","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9/thumbnail_3286000.jpg","/articles/6116655/Montana/Bills-creating-extended-liability-for-genderdysphoria-treatments-draw-sharply-divided-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116655-aad38226381fa2da8ded916303c40166/orig.mp4?Expires=1770872497&Signature=nzCzCxX8P3BACFbJAeXmmmqpPT8yTAtHOeYylA7S59maYSp26MrjdxFKp6fR3qXYXKLDuHTamvu-M8repCyWfeZUuzWq6a-Ph1AZepXl8U-yf6AXp8Td6loUUuXdL9NndhtOA0S342PbSvi7cvDgC0Kh0YoZxxUTtIECj35eGaKv6FEHwcl6qQOdHSCEDe3q6WtnlQbegx7mja6ksIADFu2w4DiBXwxH5h0VxLhJPnVsb9li1J8e-EmUNPKMga6gA535wx2r-YE82K61Z4oY3uVHRgNWpMEEE0uTZARtikKpi0rkxXB~gfkamLism-aFtdo1WcqSVWEWPrSXd66azQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator John Fuller introduced Senate Bill 218 as a measure to create a private civil cause of action and extend the statute of limitations to allow people who say they were harmed by medical interventions for gender dysphoria to sue providers. He framed the bill as providing justice for people who later detransition or experience harms.

Proponents included several self‑identified detransitioners and former clinic staff who described irreversible harms. Jamie Reed, who testified to the committee as a former pediatric gender‑clinic employee, urged the Legislature to “say to these harmed patients that we see you” and supported a 25‑year limitation window. Several witnesses described surgical and hormonal complications and urged expanded legal remedies for those harmed.

Opponents included medical organizations, health‑care providers, civil‑liberties groups and many providers who warned the bill’s drafting would make Montana an inhospitable environment for physicians. Dr. Saul Rivard, president of the Montana Academy of Family Physicians, testified the bill would inappropriately insert government into the physician‑patient relationship and risk driving clinicians from the state. Opponents also noted existing medical malpractice laws allow suits for negligence and argued the proposed 25‑year strict‑liability model, broad attorney‑fee provisions and potential punitive awards would make malpractice insurance unavailable or unaffordable.

Witnesses for both sides disputed empirical claims about long‑term outcomes after gender‑affirming interventions. Proponents pointed to international policy reversals and selected studies they said showed increased post‑operative distress; opponents and several clinicians said those studies were being misread and that major medical societies support evidence‑based gender‑affirming care when clinically appropriate.

Committee members asked about the practical effects of the proposed statute of limitations, the likely workload impact on courts and defenders, and whether adult patients bringing suit decades later would create unintended consequences. The Office of the State Public Defender and the Department of Corrections provided informational testimony raising staffing and bed‑capacity concerns tied to expanded liability and potential changes to criminal statutes.

No committee action or vote appears in the transcript. The debate in the hearing emphasized two competing priorities: advocates seeking remedies for people they described as harmed by medical interventions, and medical and civil‑liberties groups who warned the bill would substantially change malpractice law and the health‑care market in Montana.","Senate Bill 218, proposing a private cause of action and an extended (25‑year) statute of limitations for harms tied to medical interventions for gender dysphoria, drew large turnout of proponents who described harmful outcomes and opponents who warned the bill would chill medical practice and burden Montana’s health system.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6116660,"Montana hearing on SB 164 draws hours of testimony on criminalizing gender‑affirming care for minors",158,153000,311000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9&start=153&end=311","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2732634-a3cc1f35ea296ed6c6e0875d7fe4bfe9/thumbnail_153000.jpg","/articles/6116660/Montana/Montana-hearing-on-SB-164-draws-hours-of-testimony-on-criminalizing-genderaffirming-care-for-minors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6116660-da01b1d85a71f4da03b6e58c4a49ea86/orig.mp4?Expires=1770872497&Signature=gxX1Th8lQpyDs9oGztfqpPSSZW4NeL~6umTLpc600ij47jR7gCog9vOvU8mCIrCsGM2JGSr9q8CEby14Xf6TYArVJLtHXtwuw2~U-MtHeKcUoGTdNuY6ks5I9c0~6WBhRn2vGq6ablmwnCgNBDcGyEvuHbstFP444Y~JEBnd0yAiHHUXvrAjwRjv-Y7U1h-aaBmtjUJ0CH0nRbiRBLgTqWHCe-IENDcLUsWJIKZC849LZEYGxxyy7sjDbSPPBCpx7RbPzAemXSVS97bd8~rrO2geJfnymdWLLvSgqetpEMstROGttr5zejEBn5cM7BGB01UFqdI7T~7UAm0WhaRggg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator John Fuller, sponsor of Senate Bill 164, opened the House Judiciary hearing saying the bill would amend the statutory offense of endangering the welfare of children in 45‑5‑622, Montana Code Annotated, to prohibit providing certain medical treatments to minors and said the change was within the Legislature’s authority under Article V, Section 1 of the Montana Constitution.

Proponents testified the bill would protect children from irreversible medical interventions. Derek A. Streicher, chief legal counsel for the Montana Family Foundation, said the measure “recognizes the need for caution” and cited a February study as part of his argument that some interventions “are likely to lead to heightened psychological distress.” Jamie Reed, who identified herself as a former pediatric gender‑clinic employee and whistleblower, told the committee she saw cases she described as harms and urged lawmakers to create criminal penalties to stop what she called ongoing practices.

Opponents included physicians, medical societies, civil‑rights groups and many parents and young people. Kelsey Young of the Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said the bill would criminalize parents seeking medical care for children and “is an affront” to those who work with children harmed by abuse. Khadija Davis of the ACLU of Montana said the bill “violates the rights to privacy, dignity, parental autonomy, and the right to seek health” protected by the Montana Constitution. Dr. Lauren Wilson, a practicing pediatrician testifying for the Montana chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the committee the bill’s wording is broad and risks sweeping in established medical treatment used for other conditions. “This bill would criminalize both parents and medical personnel,” Wilson said, and could deter clinicians from practicing in Montana.

Public testimony included multiple first‑person accounts. Several speakers described personal or family experiences of detransition and urged a private cause of action or criminal penalties for providers; others—many identifying as transgender, parents of transgender children, or health‑care professionals—urged rejection of the bill as harmful to patients and private medical decision‑making.

Committee members asked medical and child‑welfare witnesses about practical effects and about the bill’s language. Representatives expressed concerns about how the bill defines “altering the appearance” and whether common medical uses of the same medications (for example, treating precocious puberty or other endocrine conditions) would be swept in. Child and family services and medical witnesses said current statutory definitions and child‑welfare practice focus on acute neglect and harm (for example, fentanyl exposure) and voiced uncertainty about how the proposed language would be applied in practice.

No formal motion or committee vote is recorded in the transcript. The hearing record shows extended public testimony and multiple follow‑up questions from committee members but concludes with Senator Fuller thanking members for an “excellent hearing.”

The measure drew strong, organized opposition from medical societies, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, the ACLU of Montana, and disability and domestic‑violence advocates; proponents included the Montana Family Foundation and several speakers who described themselves as detransitioners or as former clinic staffers. The hearing transcript records extensive back‑and‑forth about medical evidence, statutory drafting, and the potential chilling effect on clinicians; committee members asked for clarifications about intersex protections and prosecutorial discretion.

The committee did not record a final action on SB 164 in the transcript provided; further committee work or amendment is likely given the range of concerns raised and the number of technical drafting questions members asked about scope and exemptions.","A House Judiciary hearing on Senate Bill 164, which would amend the state endangerment statute to criminalize certain medical interventions for minors, drew hours of pro and con testimony from parents, medical providers, civil‑rights groups and self‑described detransitioners. No formal vote was recorded at the hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hands‑free driving bill advances after emotional testimony from victims’ families

Committee hears bill to speed return of officers’ firearms seized as evidence

Bill to roll back 2017 theft penalties draws split testimony on deterrence and prison costs

Bills creating extended liability for gender‑dysphoria treatments draw sharply divided testimony

Montana hearing on SB 164 draws hours of testimony on criminalizing gender‑affirming care for minors