[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-326698-105":59,"doc-detail-326698-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","montana-supreme-court-decision-04262019-opinion","Montana Supreme Court Decision - 04/26/2019 - Opinion","","Supreme Court of Montana opinion addressing whether a Montana statute restricting pre-viability abortions to licensed physicians and physician assistants unlawfully infringes women’s constitutional rights. The case involves a certified nurse practitioner and certified nurse midwife who sought declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction, alleging violations of privacy, equal protection, and dignity. The Court reviews jurisdiction and ripeness concerns raised on appeal and affirms the District Court’s grant of relief after considering affidavits and legal arguments.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/montana-supreme-court-decision-04262019-opinion/326698/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/montana-supreme-court-decision-04262019-opinion/326698.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"\tJames","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-10","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What legal rights did the plaintiffs claim were violated by the statute?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the statute violates Montana’s constitutional rights of privacy, equal protection, and dignity.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What did the District Court do after reviewing affidavits and legal arguments?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"After considering affidavits and arguments from all parties, the District Court granted the requested preliminary injunction on April 4, 2018.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"On what grounds did the State appeal the preliminary injunction?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The State appealed on alternative grounds: lack of standing (jurisdiction) or that the District Court issued an advisory opinion because the claims were not ripe and did not establish irreparable harm or preserve the status quo.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},326698,1790135034,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},2336474466412,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","DA 18-0308  \nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA  \n2019 MT 98  \n04/26/2019  \nCase Number: DA 18-0308  \nHELEN WEEMS and JANE DOE,  \nPlaintiffs and Appellees,  \nv.  \nSTATE OF MONTANA, by and through Timothy C. Fox, in his official capacity as Attorney General, and TRAVIS R. AHNER, in his official capacity asthe County Attorney for Flathead County, 1  \nDefendants and Appellants.  \nAPPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,  \nIn and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADV-2018-73 Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding Judge  \nCOUNSEL OF RECORD:  \nFor Appellants:  \nTimothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Rob Cameron, Deputy Attorney General, Patrick M. Risken, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana  \nTravis R. Ahner, Flathead County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana For Appellees:  \nAlex Rate, Elizabeth K. Ehret, ACLU of Montana, Missoula, Montana  \nHillary Schneller, Hailey Flynn, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, New York  \n1 We have substituted the current Flathead County Attorney pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 25(d) .  \nFor Amicus Montana Public Health Association:  \nSimona G. Strauss, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, California  \nLindsay Beck, Beck, Amsden and Stalpes, PLLC, Bozeman, Montana  \nSubmitted on Briefs: January 30, 2019 Decided: April 26, 2019  \nFiled:  \n__________________________________________  \nClerk  \nJustice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.  \n¶1 Twenty years ago, this Court held that a statute preventing a woman from obtaining a lawful medical procedure—a pre-viability abortion—from a health care provider of her choosing unconstitutionally infringed her right to individual privacy under Montana’s Constitution. Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261, ¶¶ 2, 75, 296 Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364. We used the term “health care provider”  \nto refer to any physician, physician assistant-certified, nurse, nurse-practitioner or other professional who has been determined by the appropriate medical examining and licensing authority to be competent by reason of education, training or experience, to perform the particular medical procedure or category of procedures at issue or to provide the particular medical service or category of services which the patient seeks from the health care provider.  \nArmstrong, ¶ 2, n.1 . Six years later, the Montana Legislature amended § 50-20-109(1)(a), MCA, to restrict the performance of pre-viability abortions to licensed physicians and physician assistants-certified. 2005 Mont. Laws, ch. 519, § 27. Plaintiffs, a Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNP) and Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM), filed this action in 2018, seeking a declaratory judgment that the statute violates Montana’s constitutional right of privacy, equal protection, and dignity. They moved for a preliminary injunction. Both parties submitted affidavits, and neither requested an evidentiary hearing. After considering the affidavits and legal arguments presented by all parties, the District Court granted that relief on April 4, 2018. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 6(3)(e), the State appeals on the alternative grounds that the District  \nCourt:  \n1. lacked jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek reliefon their claims; or  \n2. improperly issued an advisory opinion on claims that were not ripe for a preliminary injunction, did not establish irreparable harm, and did not seek topreserve the status quo.  \nWe affirm.  \nFACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND  \n¶2 Plaintiff Jane Doe is a CNM and women’s health nurse practitioner who practices midwifery in Montana and is proceeding in this matter under a pseudonym by leave of court. Plaintiff Helen Weems is a CNP in Montana who has been board certified in family practice by the American Nurses Credentialing Center since 1999 and re-certified every five years since.2 Weems co-owns a primary care clinic in Whitefish that offers comprehensive health services for men and women, including reproductive health care services. The other ","cbCain17AiEA95Iw","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCain17AiEA95Iw","pdf",217802,26,"English","# Factual and Procedural Background\n## Parties and alleged scope of practice\n## Prior precedent and statutory amendments\n## Evidence supporting preliminary injunction\n## Issues on appeal and disposition","[{\"question\":\"What legal rights did the plaintiffs claim were violated by the statute?\",\"answer\":\"The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the statute violates Montana’s constitutional rights of privacy, equal protection, and dignity.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the District Court do after reviewing affidavits and legal arguments?\",\"answer\":\"After considering affidavits and arguments from all parties, the District Court granted the requested preliminary injunction on April 4, 2018.\"},{\"question\":\"On what grounds did the State appeal the preliminary injunction?\",\"answer\":\"The State appealed on alternative grounds: lack of standing (jurisdiction) or that the District Court issued an advisory opinion because the claims were not ripe and did not establish irreparable harm or preserve the status quo.\"}]","Montana Supreme Court Decision - 04/26/2019 - Opinion | PDF",1789975107,66]