Results: Montanans reject LR-131, which would've established a law that makes any infant born alive a legal person

• Legislative Referendum 131 would have added a statute that protected "born-alive" infants.
• Proponents said the law was necessary to preserve infant life after birth.

Montanans rejected LR-131, which would have created a statute that established any infant born alive as a legal person and required healthcare providers to try to preserve the life of said infant. Polls closed in Montana at 8 p.m. local time, or 10 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Ballot measure details

The state of Montana voted on a controversial amendment that would have established that any infant born alive, including infants born alive as a result of abortion, must have its life preserved by medical staff.

The Republican-led Montana State Legislature voted to add LR-131 to the November ballot.

The proposed measure defined a "born-alive" infant as one who has been removed from a womb via abortion, natural or induced labor, or C-section and "breathes, has a beating heart, or has definite movement of voluntary muscles" at any stage of development.

The proposed law would have also required medical staff to provide care to keep the infant alive and report the born-alive infant. If they had failed to do so, they would have faced a $50,000 fine and/or 20 years of imprisonment.

Montana law already clarifies that infanticide is illegal.

Support and opposition

Supporters for the measure included GOP Governor Greg Gianforte, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and other pro-life groups, who argued that the law would've made it clear that the state supports infant life after failed abortions.

No on LR-131 led the campaign against this ballot measure and included Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Montana Medical Association, and OB/GYNs across the state.

Those opposed said the amendment would've meant that parents whose children were born with terminal fetal abnormalities couldn't see their infants before they died because of mandated treatments.

They also argued that the law would've put an unnecessary burden on healthcare providers who try to make the best decisions for their patients.