House Judiciary hears HB 388 to shield pregnancy centers from compelled speech and regulation

Representative Amy Regier (sponsor) opened testimony on House Bill 388, telling the House Judiciary Committee the bill is "a proactive bill that affirms the constitutional rights of pregnancy centers to function according to their purpose and protect them from any government laws or regulation that would be counter to their purpose." The bill’s sponsor said Section 2 would bar government requirements that compel centers to provide or promote services contrary to their mission and Section 3 would create legal remedies for centers that are harmed.

Supporters, including Tracy Uhlery, CEO of Options Clinic Care in Helena, and Derek A. Stryker of the Montana Family Foundation, described pregnancy medical clinics as faith‑based organizations that provide free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, STI testing, parenting classes and material assistance. "Requiring pregnancy clinics to refer or provide for abortion not only violates our First Amendment rights but undermines its very purpose," Uhlery said, summarizing proponents’ central legal and ethical claim. Multiple witnesses described attacks on centers in other states and asked the committee to preserve centers’ ability to operate according to conscience.

Opponents, including Quinn Leighton of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, Tess Fields of Blue Mountain Clinic and Robin Turner of Legal Voice, testified the bill would limit government oversight of organizations that sometimes present as medical providers but are not subject to the same licensure and regulatory regimes as medical clinics. "It would allow pregnancy centers to operate without any oversight," Leighton said. Witnesses cited instances and studies they said show some crisis pregnancy centers have shared inaccurate or incomplete medical information, raised concerns about privacy protections when organizations are not covered by HIPAA, and questioned whether the bill’s remedies favor centers over patients harmed by deceptive practices.

Committee members pressed witnesses on specific points. Tara Wooten, licensure bureau chief at the Office of Inspector General (DPHHS), told the committee pregnancy centers themselves "are not licensed under [the OIG] Licensure Bureau," though individual clinicians may hold professional licenses; she said clinics that bill insurance are generally subject to HIPAA while other entities may not be required by statute to opt into those rules. Representative Staffman asked the sponsor whether she would accept an amendment prohibiting false or misleading information; Regier replied she would not favor that amendment, saying the bill is primarily about First Amendment protections.

Legal and remedy provisions drew particular scrutiny. Opponents pointed to language allowing clinics to sue for injunctive relief and statutory damages (witnesses referenced figures such as up to $50,000 in statutory damages and potential trebling) and asked why comparable remedies would not be available to individuals who say they were defrauded. The sponsor and bill supporters said existing consumer‑protection statutes provide remedies and that the bill protects centers’ free‑exercise and free‑speech rights without removing liability for negligence.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. The record includes a mix of personal stories from patients and staff, technical testimony about licensure and HIPAA, and focused legal disagreement about the balance between free‑speech protections and consumer and patient safeguards. The hearing was closed and the committee moved to the next item on the agenda.