Montana 'Abortion Trafficking' Bill Could Criminalize Crossing State Lines for an Abortion
Transporting "an unborn child" from Montana to another state "with the intent to obtain an abortion that is illegal" in Montana, or assisting anyone in doing so, would be illegal under House Bill 609.
A new Montana bill "establishing the criminal offense of abortion trafficking" could criminalize pregnant women who cross state lines to get an abortion. Under House Bill 609, from state Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe (R–Billings), anyone convicted of "abortion trafficking" would face up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
The bill defines abortion trafficking as purposely or knowingly transporting "an unborn child that is currently located in this state either to a location within this state or to a location outside of this state with the intent to obtain an abortion that is illegal in this state."
Aiding or assisting someone else in such transportation would also make one guilty of abortion trafficking.
Criminalizing driving someone else out of Montana to do something that's legal in another state is itself ridiculous. But the language of this bill would very clearly criminalize some pregnant women who transport themselves out of state too.
But Wait… Isn't Abortion Legal in Montana?
Per a constitutional amendment voters passed in 2024, Montana allows abortion up until fetal viability and provides an exception to this limit if the mother's life or health is at risk. This fact may give pause to people who think that's an acceptable limit—after all, it's only criminalizing folks who are getting the bad kind of abortions, right?
Look, I don't love the idea of late-term abortions either. But let's step back here for a moment.
First, there are what many would consider justifiable reasons for getting an abortion after about 24 weeks, including fatal fetal conditions that aren't discovered until later in a pregnancy. "Had a bill like this been law at the time, I wouldn't just be a grieving mother, I'd be a felon," Anne Angus told Jessica Valenti of Abortion, Every Day:
The 35-year-old left Montana for an abortion in 2022, after her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition. She was 24 weeks pregnant—which was past the legal abortion window at the time. Under HB 609, she could have faced years in prison. "All for fleeing the state to give my son the compassion and dignity he deserved," she says.
What's more, you needn't cheer on unconstitutional, travel-limiting measures like this just because they might stop a few abortions that don't meet your moral standards. There are other solutions—like pushing for changes to laws in states with no limits—that could address abortion-after-viability concerns without implicating other rights.
It's also possible that Montana voters will someday topple the recent constitutional amendment and the state will ban abortion much earlier in pregnancy or ban it entirely. In that case, a woman leaving the state for a first-trimester abortion could still be found guilty of abortion trafficking.
Perhaps most importantly, we should keep in mind that this is unlikely to stop with Montana. In fact, it's possible that Montana is seen by some as the perfect test ground for this sort of thing precisely because it currently allows abortions until viability.
"By starting in a state where abortion is legal until 'viability,' it gives Republicans a certain amount of PR cover. They can pretend this isn't about restricting women's right to travel—just about stopping 'late' abortion," suggests Valenti. "It's no accident that HB 609 targets later abortion patients… just like it's no coincidence that earlier 'trafficking' laws focused on teens."
That's just speculation, of course. But it wouldn't surprise me if backers of abortion trafficking laws like Montana's H.B. 609 may be counting on people to let this one slide, since it would only implicate post-viability abortions (for now). Meanwhile, they get to test out messaging and legal arguments before moving on to a state where abortion is banned earlier or entirely.
The Politics of 'Trafficking'
For now, H.B. 609 has been referred to the Montana House Judiciary Committee and had an initial hearing this morning.
Whatever happens with this bill, it surely won't be the last we'll hear about abortion trafficking, a term Republicans have begun to use and favor more frequently in recent years.
It's a handy framing trick. Calling something "abortion trafficking" sounds a lot more nefarious than "driving out of state for an abortion." The latter implicates Americans' right to freedom of movement and might give some moderate people pause. But trafficking means to deal or trade in something illegal and is used in other criminal statutes (drug trafficking, sex trafficking, labor trafficking). For those not paying close attention, abortion trafficking may seem to mean something worse than it does. And even for those who know the definition, it may unconsciously prime expectations of shiftiness and criminality, even when it's being used to refer to someone who leaves the state to get a legal abortion somewhere else.
This is a well-worn strategy. As Mistress Matisse pointed out on X, "They tested 'self-trafficking' charges on sex workers first." Sex workers have sometimes been charged with "sex trafficking" themselves. In addition, sex work customers or prospective customers are sometimes described as sex traffickers and charged with sex trafficking. Because sex trafficking can also refer to terrible crimes, like forcing someone else to sell sex, the term is a muddled mess that allows authorities to invoke evil criminals and heroic rescues when what they're doing is arresting people for trying to have consensual sex.
Some Republicans seem intent on pulling a similar trick with abortion trafficking.
The term is being defined differently in the various states that have considered abortion trafficking legislation. In Idaho and Tennessee, abortion trafficking laws ban helping a minor get an out-of-state abortion.
Regardless of precise definition, invoking trafficking suggests some sort of coercion—a girl or woman being ferried across state lines for an abortion against her will—or the involvement of a black-market abortionist, when the reality is usually people taking advantage of freedom of movement and federalism in order to have abortions.
More Sex & Tech News
Anti-drag bills in Idaho and Iowa: A bill in Iowa would make it a felony to bring a minor to a drag show. "The legislation, House Study Bill 158, moved out of an Iowa House subcommittee, where lawmakers said they expect changes to the bill," according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch. "Under the current proposal, any adult person who knowingly brings a minor to a drag performance at a business can be charged with a class D felony. The owner or manager of an establishment who knowingly allows minors to attend drag shows could also be charged with a class D felony, and businesses could be fined $10,000 under the bill."
Meanwhile, in Idaho, an anti-drag bill just passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor. "House Bill 230, sponsored by Rep. Ted Hill, R-Eagle, would require event hosts and organizers to verify people's age to attend public performances that are considered 'indecent sexual exhibitions,' using the same indecency standard used by the Federal Communications Commission to determine whether content is appropriate for daytime television," and minors illegally exposed to so-called indecent performances could sue, reports the Idaho Capital Sun. "While the bill does not explicitly say the words 'drag shows,' the [Idahoa Family Policy Center] said the legislation was inspired by drag shows held in public parks in Coeur d'Alene and Boise."
Abortion-as-homicide bills flounder…and proliferate: A bill from Dusty Deevers—Oklahoma state senator, Christian nationalist, anti-porn crusader—that would have made women who get abortions punishable under homicide laws failed to pass out of the state Senate judiciary committee. Six members of the committee voted no, while just two voted in favor. Likewise, a North Dakota measure that would have made abortion punishable under homicide laws failed to pass out of the state's House of Representatives, with 77 nays to just 16 yays. But similar bills in Indiana and South Carolina have yet to receive votes. Meanwhile, other states—like Kentucky, most recently—have started introducing legislation to punish abortion under homicide statutes. Such proposals have also been introduced in Idaho and Texas.
Content moderation is not an antitrust issue: New Federal Trade Commission efforts "indicate that, once again, the connection between antitrust and concerns about content moderation may be under consideration," notes Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute. "Yet this misunderstands the appropriate use of antitrust enforcement, the likely outcomes for content moderation under such enforcement, and the ways the current liability protection of Section 230 actually encourages competition in content moderation."
Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum's take? FTC head Andrew Ferguson "is flexing his regulatory powers in a way that undermines freedom of speech by meddling in private editorial choices." Ferguson said this is about stopping "unfair and deceptive practices," but the FTC has no business trying to make social media "fair," Sullum suggests:
In practice, ensuring "fair" treatment of users means overriding editorial decisions that the FTC deems opaque, unreasonable, inconsistent, or discriminatory.
The challenge of making sure that social media are "fair and balanced" is illustrated by a 2004 FTC complaint against Fox News. Two left-leaning advocacy groups claimed the news outlet's use of that slogan amounted to deceptive advertising. Assessing that complaint, then-FTC Chairman Timothy Muris noted, would require "evaluating the content" of the channel's news coverage—a probe foreclosed by the First Amendment.
Sullum further notes that conservatives should be wary of ideas like this because "if the FTC can second-guess editorial judgments to achieve what a Republican majority thinks is the right mix of opinions, a future commission controlled by Democrats can enforce a different agenda."
Today's Image
