Montana House Committee of the Whole debates scores of bills; close votes on pesticide liability, IVF and jail searches

Members of the Montana House met in Committee of the Whole on March 5 for second reading of a large set of bills. The session produced several closely contested votes and a number of measures that passed by wide margins. Key debates touched on liability protection for pesticide manufacturers, a state ban on lab‑grown meat, parental control over identity instruction in schools, insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization, and rules allowing strip searches of people held more than 12 hours in jails.

The most closely watched items included:

- House Bill 522: A bill introduced by Representative Schillinger that would have limited civil liability for pesticide manufacturers, distributors, retailers and applicators when products have completed EPA review and are used and labeled as registered. Supporters, including several farm‑sector representatives, framed the bill as protecting access to agricultural tools and preventing large liability costs from reducing availability of products; opponents pointed to jury verdicts in other states and personal accounts of cancer cases and urged lawmakers not to remove victims’ avenues for claims. The measure failed on a recorded second‑reading vote: 49 ayes, 50 nays.

- House Bill 401: A ban on the manufacture, sale and distribution in Montana of cell‑cultured ("lab‑grown") meat, sponsored by Representative Mitchell. Supporters said the measure protects traditional meat producers and public health because federal review is ongoing; opponents warned that the bill creates criminal penalties and questioned whether the state should criminalize a product not proven harmful. The committee recommended passage on second reading (64 ayes, 35 nays).

- House Bill 471: A measure by Representative Jed Hinkle that distinguishes "identity instruction" (gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation) as a parental opt‑in item and treats other human sexuality instruction as opt‑out. The bill generated lengthy debate from teachers, school administrators and parents, with opponents calling the change a barrier to student access and safety and proponents saying it restores parental choice and reduces distrust in public schools. The committee recommended…