Montana House candidates split on abortion, but debate shifts following Dobbs

The abortion debate has taken a different turn on the campaign trail in Montana since the U.S. Supreme Court released the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe vs. Wade.

Last week in Butte, moderators asked candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Montana’s western district to clarify at what gestational age and under what circumstances they would permit abortion, if at all.

The Dobbs decision in June found the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, and many states have since moved to restrict it. Roe had protected abortion on the basis of privacy, as does the 1999 Montana Supreme Court Armstrong decision in the Treasure State.

None of the three candidates answered the questions specifically, but Christina Barsky, political analyst with the University of Montana, said one candidate in particular, Democrat Monica Tranel, placed the conversation in a newer context, that of privacy.

“I think she’s using that as a tool to expand her appeal and reach,” Barsky said.

At this debate and an earlier forum in Missoula, John Lamb, the Libertarian candidate, pointed to his own children in response to questions about abortion. He noted six of his 12 children sat in the audience in Butte at the event hosted by Lee Enterprises and Montana Public Radio, and he said he was in complete support of the decision to overturn Roe.

“I’m 100 percent pro-life,” said Lamb, a farmer from Norris. “I believe life starts at conception.”

Republican Ryan Zinke, a former U.S. Navy SEAL, said he’s proud to be pro-life, but sometimes women need to make difficult decisions. He said he believes a complete ban is too harsh, but allowing abortion all the way up to birth is “barbaric.”

“I wish abortion wasn’t there, but life isn’t perfect,” said Zinke, also a former congressman and U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

Tranel, on the other hand, immediately and repeatedly said the issue is about “privacy and freedom.”

“And I am the only candidate in this race to stand unequivocally with you for your privacy to make your own health care decisions, to make decisions about your body,” said Tranel, a Missoula lawyer.

In her response, she touched on issues that relate to health but also ones that are completely different. She said attorneys general have issued more than 50,000 subpoenas to Google for search and location data, and anyone with a cell phone is at risk. 

“If they can do that for abortion, they can do it for hunting. They can do it for buying a gun. They can do it for everything and anything you do,” Tranel said. “The stakes are very high.”

In the past, the debate around abortion used to be framed around “choice” versus “life” and women’s issues, said Barsky, faculty in the UM Department of Public Administration and Policy.

After the Dobbs decision, however, she said people noted period tracking apps, for instance, could be used to prosecute people who can become pregnant with information about their private menstrual cycles. And she said Tranel’s remarks were likely directed, in part, at younger women familiar with that technology.

“On the other hand, I also think that this might be an appeal to sort of the traditional ideal that we have of ourselves as Montanans. We trumpet the fact that we have this right to privacy,” Barsky said.

By mentioning “crosscutting” issues such as gun ownership, Barsky said Tranel strategically expands the tent to appeal to voters who may not consider abortion their issue, but will make decisions based on privacy.

“It’s moving the conversation from a women’s issue around choice, the historic framing, to now, it’s a citizen’s issue of privacy,” Barsky said.

She said the candidates largely talked about their positions on abortion in ways listeners might expect, with Lamb mentioning his children multiple times in the debate. She said she doesn’t believe a view on abortion is one that moves voters from Zinke to Lamb, but Zinke tried to tread lightly on taking a solid stance.

“Zinke was trying to thread the needle by not committing to a hard and fast belief or position, sort of skirting around making a declaration,” Barsky said.