Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Health Shackling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bipartisan support to restrict shackling of pregnant inmates; executive action stalls and bill is tabled
Summary
Representative James Reavis introduced HB 475 to bar routine shackling of pregnant detainees during labor and delivery except in narrow safety cases; medical groups, the ACLU and OB‑GYNs urged passage, citing health and constitutional concerns. During executive action the committee was split and ultimately tabled the bill.
Representative James Reavis presented House Bill 475 to the Senate Judiciary Committee as a narrow statute restricting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates while they are in labor and delivery. Reavis said the bill follows model language used in other states and contains exceptions for established flight risk or clear threat to safety.
Proponents included medical and civil‑liberty groups, physicians and representatives of health organizations. Henry Seaton of the ACLU of Montana urged support, citing constitutional and ethical concerns and national medical guidance that opposes restraints during childbirth. Leah Miller, an OB‑GYN appearing for the Montana section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told the committee restraints complicate medical care and “make it harder. It's worse for the patients. It's worse for the doctors and the nurses taking care of them.” Jean Branscum of the Montana Medical Association said the measure aligns with best‑practice medical care and urged the committee to act. John Rhodes of Catalyst Montana argued restrictions protect mothers and babies and noted that many states have enacted similar prohibitions.
No formal opponents were recorded; the sponsor said the practice is rare but that codifying a prohibition would make the standard clear and protect detainees and caregivers. Several committee members indicated they view the policy as sensible, but some senators said codifying the standard could amount to unnecessary statutory clutter because state jail standards already prohibit routine shackling in labor. One senator said the bill should be unnecessary if agencies are already following the practice; another senator said exceptions for safety remain important.
In executive action the committee split on concurring in the House bill: the motion to concur failed after a tie vote and the committee then tabled HB 475 by unanimous (no objection) motion. The sponsor noted the bill had passed the House unanimously (100–0) and suggested possible Senate carriers if the bill is restored from the table.
The committee record captures wide medical and civil‑liberties support for the bill while senators raised procedural questions about statutory clarity versus existing policy. The bill remains tabled as of the close of the committee’s session.
