Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.
Uninsured rate · all ages8.8%2024 · #15 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 6511%2024 · #13 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6570%2024 · #35 of 50 · highest first
Montana over time
Explore Montana readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Montana officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Montana effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Montana change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Uninsured rate · all ages Montana · source units
MontanaPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
4 of 4 reviewed Montana actions match · 4 date markers shown. 21 major events shown separately.
Montana · 2024: 8.8% · Rank #15 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Montana · state comparison
Who has health coverage?
Compare ACS annual estimates for all ages or people under 65. Coverage categories can overlap and do not sum to the insured share.
Montana · 20248.8%
Montana rank#15among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark8.2%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Uninsured rate · all ages
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population.
ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Montana
2024 · Montana: 8.8% · Rank #15 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Montana Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
Montana
Compare
2014
14.2%
2015
11.6%
2016
8.1%
2017
8.5%
2018
8.2%
2019
8.3%
2020
Not available
2021
8.2%
2022
8.3%
2023
8.4%
2024
8.8%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.
Lower value · 2.8%Higher value · 16.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Montana · 8.8%2024 · Rank #15 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
16.7%
—
#2
Georgia
12%
—
#3
Oklahoma
11.5%
—
#4
Nevada
11.4%
—
#5
Alaska
11%
—
#6
Florida
10.9%
—
#7
Arizona
10.3%
—
#7
Wyoming
10.3%
—
#9
New Mexico
10.1%
—
#10
Mississippi
9.7%
—
#10
Tennessee
9.7%
—
#12
Arkansas
9.4%
—
#13
Idaho
9.2%
—
#14
South Carolina
9%
—
#15
Montana · your comparison
8.8%
—
#16
North Carolina
8.6%
—
#17
Kansas
8.5%
—
#18
Utah
8.3%
—
#19
Alabama
8.2%
—
#20
South Dakota
8.1%
—
#21
Colorado
7.9%
—
#22
Louisiana
7.7%
—
#22
Missouri
7.7%
—
#22
New Jersey
7.7%
—
#25
Indiana
7.5%
—
#26
Nebraska
7.1%
—
#27
Delaware
6.9%
—
#27
Illinois
6.9%
—
#27
Virginia
6.9%
—
#30
Kentucky
6.8%
—
#31
Ohio
6.7%
—
#32
Washington
6.5%
—
#33
Maryland
6.3%
—
#34
North Dakota
6.1%
—
#35
California
5.9%
—
#36
Connecticut
5.8%
—
#36
Pennsylvania
5.8%
—
#36
West Virginia
5.8%
—
#39
Maine
5.5%
—
#40
Iowa
5.4%
—
#41
Wisconsin
5.3%
—
#42
Oregon
5.2%
—
#43
Michigan
5.1%
—
#43
Minnesota
5.1%
—
#45
New York
5%
—
#46
Rhode Island
4.6%
—
#47
New Hampshire
4.5%
—
#48
Vermont
4.2%
—
#49
Hawaii
3.5%
—
#50
Massachusetts
2.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of Montana’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.
This is a survey estimate for people under 65 and does not describe coverage type or continuity of coverage.
Insurance status alone does not measure affordability, access, quality, or health outcomes.
State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare Montana with every state.
Montana · 2020$10,212
Montana rank#25among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$10,191Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Personal healthcare spending per resident
Personal health care expenditure per resident, assigned to the state where the patient resides.
2020 is the last year in this CMS state series. Personal health care excludes administration, public health, and investment included in national health expenditures. This is spending by all payers, not a household bill.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Montana
2020 · Montana: $10,212 · Rank #25 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Montana Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
Montana
Compare
2014
$7,942
2015
$8,344
2016
$8,680
2017
$9,030
2018
$9,354
2019
$9,808
2020
$10,212
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.
Lower value · $7.52KHigher value · $14.01KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Montana · $10,2122020 · Rank #25 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana · your comparison
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin
$9,982
—
#29
Missouri
$9,921
—
#30
Michigan
$9,897
—
#31
Florida
$9,865
—
#32
Iowa
$9,789
—
#33
Oklahoma
$9,444
—
#34
Kansas
$9,408
—
#35
Mississippi
$9,394
—
#36
Arkansas
$9,338
—
#37
Tennessee
$9,336
—
#38
Alabama
$9,280
—
#39
Washington
$9,265
—
#40
Virginia
$9,195
—
#41
North Carolina
$8,917
—
#42
New Mexico
$8,902
—
#43
South Carolina
$8,766
—
#44
Georgia
$8,758
—
#45
Arizona
$8,756
—
#46
Colorado
$8,583
—
#47
Texas
$8,406
—
#48
Nevada
$8,348
—
#49
Idaho
$8,148
—
#50
Utah
$7,522
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.
Montana · 202277.3 years
Montana rank#24among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark77.5 yearsSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Life expectancy at birth
FactVote uses CDC National Center for Health Statistics annual complete life-table estimates for the total Montana population. Values are rounded to the published tenth of a year.
The latest published comparable state series ends in 2022, even though newer national life-expectancy estimates may be available. Period life expectancy summarizes current mortality rates; it is not a forecast of how long a particular person will live. The 2020 and 2021 estimates reflect the mortality shock during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Montana
2022 · Montana: 77.3 years · Rank #24 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Montana Life expectancy at birth history
Period
Montana
Compare
2018
78.7 years
2019
78.4 years
2020
76.8 years
2021
75.8 years
2022
77.3 years
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.
Lower value · 72.2 yearsHigher value · 80 yearsStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Montana · 77.3 years2022 · Rank #24 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
80 years
—
#2
Massachusetts
79.8 years
—
#3
New Jersey
79.6 years
—
#4
New York
79.5 years
—
#5
Connecticut
79.4 years
—
#6
California
79.3 years
—
#6
Minnesota
79.3 years
—
#8
Rhode Island
79.2 years
—
#9
Utah
79 years
—
#10
New Hampshire
78.7 years
—
#11
Colorado
78.5 years
—
#12
Idaho
78.4 years
—
#12
Washington
78.4 years
—
#14
Nebraska
78.3 years
—
#14
Vermont
78.3 years
—
#16
Wisconsin
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana · your comparison
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 years
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.
Montana · 20237.9%
Montana rank#46among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark10.7%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted
Adult self-reported prevalence, age-adjusted to a common population.
Published CDC 2019–2023 series. Missing or suppressed estimates remain unranked. Confidence intervals describe sampling uncertainty; point ranks are not significance tests.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Montana
2023 · Montana: 7.9% · Rank #46 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Montana Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
Montana
Compare
2019
6.4%
2020
7.8%
2021
7.7%
2022
7.1%
2023
7.9%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.
Lower value · 7.8%Higher value · 15.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Montana · 7.9%2023 · Rank #46 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 7.2% – 8.7%Selected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Montana with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin
9.6%
95% CI: 9–10.2
#31
Hawaii
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31
New York
9.5%
95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31
Oregon
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34
Wyoming
9.4%
95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35
Minnesota
9.3%
95% CI: 8.6–10
#36
New Jersey
9.1%
95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37
Maine
9%
95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38
North Dakota
8.9%
95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39
Idaho
8.7%
95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40
Washington
8.6%
95% CI: 8.2–9
#41
Massachusetts
8.5%
95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42
Connecticut
8.4%
95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43
Alaska
8.2%
95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44
Utah
8.1%
95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45
Colorado
8%
95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46
Montana · your comparison
7.9%
95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46
New Hampshire
7.9%
95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48
Vermont
7.8%
95% CI: 7–8.7
—
Kentucky
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Pennsylvania
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.
Montana · June 30, 202638.5%
Montana rank#39among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark47.4%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Primary care · need met
HRSA-designated shortage areas; measures describe need within those areas, not the entire state population.
National report totals can include territories. Designation rules and populations differ by discipline; do not add disciplines. Absolute population and practitioner ranks also reflect state size.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.
Lower value · 11.2%Higher value · 83.2%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Montana · 38.5%June 30, 2026 · Rank #39 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Jersey
83.2%
—
#2
Vermont
82.6%
—
#3
South Carolina
79.4%
—
#4
New Hampshire
74.8%
—
#5
Rhode Island
74.3%
—
#6
Louisiana
72.1%
—
#7
Hawaii
67.1%
—
#8
Utah
65.4%
—
#9
Wisconsin
65.2%
—
#10
Alabama
63%
—
#11
Connecticut
60.3%
—
#12
Massachusetts
58%
—
#13
Tennessee
58%
—
#14
Virginia
57.2%
—
#15
Pennsylvania
56.7%
—
#16
Maine
56%
—
#17
Minnesota
55.4%
—
#18
Wyoming
54.4%
—
#19
Indiana
54.2%
—
#20
California
53.2%
—
#21
Arkansas
52.6%
—
#22
Texas
49.8%
—
#23
Ohio
49.7%
—
#24
Nebraska
49.1%
—
#25
Alaska
48.9%
—
#26
North Carolina
48.1%
—
#27
Colorado
47.5%
—
#28
Michigan
44.9%
—
#29
Oregon
43.9%
—
#30
Idaho
43.9%
—
#31
Washington
42.4%
—
#32
Illinois
41.5%
—
#33
Nevada
41.5%
—
#34
Arizona
41.2%
—
#35
Kansas
41.1%
—
#36
Iowa
40.5%
—
#37
Florida
39.7%
—
#38
Georgia
39.1%
—
#39
Montana · your comparison
38.5%
—
#40
West Virginia
38.3%
—
#41
North Dakota
36.5%
—
#42
New York
35.3%
—
#43
South Dakota
34.6%
—
#44
Mississippi
34.1%
—
#45
Maryland
31.6%
—
#46
New Mexico
31.4%
—
#47
Kentucky
30.8%
—
#48
Oklahoma
28.6%
—
#49
Missouri
23.7%
—
#50
Delaware
11.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.
Montana · 2020$6,860
Montana rank#39among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$7,149Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Single coverage premium · all firms
Average total annual employer-plan premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments offering coverage.
Historical 2020 published all-state table; not a current quote. Includes both employer and employee contributions, rather than just a worker’s payment. Survey estimates and small firm samples carry uncertainty. Missing estimates remain unavailable.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.
Lower value · $6.39KHigher value · $8.64KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Montana · $6,8602020 · Rank #39 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7,250
—
#20
Pennsylvania
$7,246
—
#21
North Dakota
$7,216
—
#22
Colorado
$7,206
—
#23
Missouri
$7,179
—
#24
California
$7,173
—
#25
Florida
$7,078
—
#26
South Dakota
$7,070
—
#27
Oklahoma
$7,058
—
#28
Hawaii
$7,040
—
#29
North Carolina
$7,036
—
#30
Texas
$7,017
—
#31
West Virginia
$6,993
—
#32
Ohio
$6,989
—
#33
Kentucky
$6,949
—
#34
Iowa
$6,932
—
#35
Virginia
$6,928
—
#36
Oregon
$6,917
—
#37
Minnesota
$6,910
—
#38
Georgia
$6,876
—
#39
Montana · your comparison
$6,860
—
#40
Idaho
$6,744
—
#41
Louisiana
$6,713
—
#42
Michigan
$6,683
—
#43
Kansas
$6,675
—
#44
Arizona
$6,612
—
#45
Utah
$6,593
—
#46
Mississippi
$6,561
—
#47
Nevada
$6,493
—
#48
Tennessee
$6,485
—
#49
Arkansas
$6,414
—
#50
Alabama
$6,393
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.
Montana · 2023–202425.6%
Montana rank#13among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark23.1%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+
Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 18+, past-year prevalence or treatment use, estimated by small-area survey models.
Mental illness and depression estimates pool 2023–2024; treatment use covers 2024 only. Definitions and model-based uncertainty differ from the national page’s annual 2025 survey estimates. Point-estimate ranks do not establish significant differences. Serious mental illness is a subset of any mental illness, so their percentages must not be added.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Montana stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Montana has a dark outline.
Lower value · 18.1%Higher value · 31.6%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Montana · 25.6%2023–2024 · Rank #13 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Montana with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Oregon
31.6%
—
#2
Vermont
29.1%
—
#3
West Virginia
28.1%
—
#4
Washington
27.9%
—
#5
New Hampshire
27.7%
—
#6
Tennessee
27%
—
#7
Utah
26.7%
—
#8
Maine
26.7%
—
#9
Arkansas
26.6%
—
#10
Colorado
26.4%
—
#11
Rhode Island
25.8%
—
#12
Missouri
25.7%
—
#13
Montana · your comparison
25.6%
—
#14
Indiana
25.3%
—
#15
Kentucky
25.3%
—
#16
Georgia
25.2%
—
#17
Iowa
25%
—
#18
Massachusetts
24.9%
—
#19
Wyoming
24.7%
—
#20
Nevada
24.6%
—
#21
Arizona
24.6%
—
#22
Wisconsin
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota
23%
—
#36
Maryland
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
4 of 4 reviewed Montana actions · newest first
May 23, 2025 · SB 531 · Provide tax credit for purchase of a firearm safe · Not enactedMontana Legislature · SB 531
Provide tax credit for purchase of a firearm safe
May 23, 2025 · Not enacted
Sen. Andrea Olsen · Sponsored / Sen. Sara Novak · Co-sponsored / Sen. Cora Neumann · Co-sponsored / Sen. Willis Curdy · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mary Ann Dunwell · Co-sponsored / Sen. Janet Ellis · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jacinda Morigeau · Co-sponsored / Sen. Susan Webber · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy · Co-sponsored / Sen. Ellie Boldman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Pat Flowers · Co-sponsored / Sen. Denise Hayman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Shane Morigeau · Co-sponsored / Sen. Christopher Pope · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
As introduced, SB 531 proposed a refundable individual income-tax credit equal to the purchase price of a qualifying firearm safe, capped at $300 per taxpayer per tax year and claimed in the year of purchase. A safe would have to meet the specified lock, boltwork, steel-construction and hinge-protection requirements and be certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory as meeting Underwriters Laboratories residential security container rating standards. The proposal would have applied to income tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026. It died in process and did not establish a credit, a storage mandate or evidence that firearm deaths declined.
The legislative docket records “Died in Process.” The displayed date is the docket timestamp. This proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The CDC fact measures age-adjusted firearm deaths across intents. A proposed tax credit for firearm safes concerns secure storage and prevention policy. Safe purchases are not deaths, and the proposal does not demonstrate reduced mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Credit for purchase of firearm safe -- purpose. (1) There is a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the purchase of a firearm safe. (2) The credit allowed under this section must be claimed in the tax year in which the firearm safe is purchased and is equal to the purchase price of the firearm safe. The credit may not exceed $300 a taxpayer in a tax year. (3) The credit must be refunded if the taxpayer has a tax liability less than the credit claimed. (4) To claim the credit, a firearm safe: (a) must be a secure and protective storage container for one or more firearms: (i) that fully contains a firearm and provides for its safe storage; (ii) that has a locking system consisting of a mechanical or electronic combination lock that has at least 10,000 possible combinations consisting of a minimum of three numbers, letters, or symbols. The lock must be protected by a case-hardened, drill-resistant steel plate or drill-resistant material of equivalent strength. (iii) with boltwork that consists of a minimum of three locking steel bolts of at least 1/2-inch thickness that intrude from the door of the safe into the body of the safe or from the body of the safe into the door of the safe and that are operated by a separate handle and secured by the lock; (iv) that is capable of repeated use. The exterior walls must be constructed of a minimum 12-gauge steel for a single-walled safe, or the sum of the steel walls must add up to at least one-tenth of an inch for safes with two walls. Doors must be constructed of a minimum of one layer of 7-gauge steel plate reinforced construction or at least two layers of a minimum of 12-gauge steel compound construction. (v) with door hinges that are protected to prevent the removal of the door. Protective features include but are not limited to hinges not exposed to the outside, interlocking door designs, dead bars, jeweler's lugs, and active or inactive locking bolts. (b) must fully contain the firearm, provide for secure storage, and be certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory as meeting underwriters laboratories residential security container rating standards. (5) Pursuant to 5-4-104, the legislature finds that the purpose of the tax credit provided for in this section is to encourage the purchase of firearm safes to promote community and family safety.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 20, 2025 · HB 555 · Generally revise laws related to chemical abortion · Not enactedMontana Legislature · HB 555
Generally revise laws related to chemical abortion
As introduced, HB 555 proposed conditions on knowingly providing or attempting to provide medication abortions in or affecting interstate commerce: an in-person examination, the provider’s physical presence, a scheduled follow-up occurring no more than seven days after drug administration or use, and a collection kit and medical waste bag with instructions to return them to the provider for disposal. Each provider violation could carry a felony penalty of up to $10,000, up to three years’ imprisonment, or both. The proposal excepted abortions necessary to preserve a life endangered by the specified physical conditions, barred patient prosecution under the section and preserved treatment of verified ectopic pregnancy. Separate provisions addressed manufacturer disposal duties. The bill died in process and did not become law.
The legislative docket records “Died in Process.” The displayed date is the docket timestamp. This proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions occurring in Montana, including care for nonresidents. Conditions on medication abortions and a proposed Down-syndrome-related prohibition concern subsets of those procedures; they do not establish changes in the number reported. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Conditions on providing chemical abortion affecting interstate commerce -- penalties. (1) A health care provider may not knowingly provide or attempt to provide a chemical abortion if the provision or attempt is in or affects interstate commerce without: (a) physically examining the patient; (b) being physically present at the location of the chemical abortion; (c) scheduling a follow-up visit to assess the patient's physical condition that must occur not more than 7 days after the administration or use of the drug; and (d) providing a catch kit and medical waste bag, including instructions for the patient to bring the catch kit and medical waste bag to the health care provider for proper disposal. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), a health care provider who violates any provision of subsection (1)(a) through (1)(d) is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than $10,000 and imprisoned up to 3 years, or both, for each violation. (3) This section does not apply to a chemical abortion that is necessary to preserve the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life- endangering physical condition. (4) A patient on whom an abortion is performed may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section or conspiracy to violate this section. (5) Nothing in this section may be construed to have an impact on the treatment of a verified ectopic pregnancy.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 27, 2025 · HB 245 · AN ACT REVISING THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS AND THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE HEALTHY MONTANA HEALTH AND ECONOMIC LIVELIHOOD PARTNERSHIP ACT; REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTING FOR TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS; AMENDING SECTION 39-12-103, MCA; REPEALING SECTION 28, CHAPTER 368, LAWS OF 2015, SECTIONS 38 AND 48, CHAPTER 415, LAWS OF 2019, SECTION 17, CHAPTER 456, LAWS OF 2019, AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4, CHAPTER 318, LAWS OF 2021; AND PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATES · Enacted · Chapter 35Montana Legislature · HB 245
AN ACT REVISING THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS AND THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE HEALTHY MONTANA HEALTH AND ECONOMIC LIVELIHOOD PARTNERSHIP ACT; REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTING FOR TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS; AMENDING SECTION 39-12-103, MCA; REPEALING SECTION 28, CHAPTER 368, LAWS OF 2015, SECTIONS 38 AND 48, CHAPTER 415, LAWS OF 2019, SECTION 17, CHAPTER 456, LAWS OF 2019, AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4, CHAPTER 318, LAWS OF 2021; AND PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATES
Mar 27, 2025 · Enacted · Chapter 35
Rep. Ed Buttrey · Sponsored / Rep. Eric Albus · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brad Barker · Co-sponsored / Rep. David Bedey · Co-sponsored / Rep. Julie Darling · Co-sponsored / Rep. Llew Jones · Co-sponsored / Rep. Valerie Moore · Co-sponsored / Rep. George Nikolakakos · Co-sponsored / Rep. Melissa Nikolakakos · Co-sponsored / Rep. Greg Oblander · Co-sponsored / Rep. Gary Parry · Co-sponsored / Rep. Curtis Schomer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Eric Tilleman · Co-sponsored / Rep. Ken Walsh · Co-sponsored / Sen. Bruce "Butch" Gillespie · Co-sponsored / Sen. Josh Kassmier · Co-sponsored / Sen. Gayle Lammers · Co-sponsored / Sen. Denley Loge · Co-sponsored / Sen. Wendy McKamey · Co-sponsored / Sen. Russ Tempel · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 245 repeals the HELP Act termination provisions and revises workforce-development services for people receiving expanded Medicaid coverage. It directs contact and assessment assistance for participants subject to community-engagement requirements and removes the requirement to contract for those services. The workforce section specifies October 1, 2025; other provisions specify passage and approval. This connection concerns continued coverage authority, not proof of enrollment, implementation of work requirements or an uninsured-rate change.
The legislative docket records “Signed by Governor” and chapter 35. The displayed date is the docket timestamp, not an independently verified original execution date. Enactment does not prove implementation or current enforceability.
Why this record is included
The fact measures the uninsured share of residents under 65. Repealing the HELP Act termination provisions concerns continued Medicaid eligibility for qualifying adults, a subset of that population. The relationship does not establish enrollment numbers or a change in the uninsured share. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. Section 39-12-103, MCA, is amended to read: "39-12-103. Montana HELP Act workforce development -- participation . (1) The department shall provide individuals receiving assistance for health care services pursuant to Title 53, chapter 6, part 13, with the option of participating in an employment or reemployment assessment in the workforce development program provided for in 39-12-101 to allow the participant to increase the participant's earning capacity and economic stability. The assessment must identify any probable barriers to employment that exist for the individual. (2) The department shall contact each program participant subject to the community engagement requirements of 53-6-1308 and assist the participant with completion of an employment or reemployment assessment. Based on the results of the assessment, the department shall provide the participant with workforce development services. (3) Allowable workforce development services include: (a) education and training; and (b) supportive services that assist a program participant with the items or services necessary to participate in the workforce, including but not limited to supportive services involving clothing, transportation, and equipment needed to obtain or maintain employment. (4) Entities contracting to provide workforce development services shall report quarterly to the department on the activities provided. At a minimum, the entities shall report on: (a) the number of clients enrolled in program activities and co-enrolled in other workforce programs; (b) the types of services provided; (c) the number of clients who attained a credential or gained a measurable skill; (d) the number of clients who exited the program; (e) the number of clients who exited the program to employment; (f) the number of clients who continued enrollment in the program; (g) the amount and type of outreach the entity has done to recruit program participants; and (h) the amount of money spent directly on participants. (5) (a) The department shall notify the department of public health and human services when a participant has received all services and assistance under subsection (1) that can reasonably be provided to the individual. (b) The department is not required to provide further services under this section after it has provided the notification provided for in subsection (5)(a). (c) A participant who is no longer receiving services under this section does not meet the criteria of 53-6-1307(6)(c) for the exemption granted under 53-6-1307(6). (6) The department shall report the following information to the legislative finance committee and the children, families, health, and human services interim committee in accordance with 5-11-210: (a) the activities undertaken to establish the employer grant program provided for in 39-12-106; (b) the number of employers receiving grant awards and the number and types of activities, training, or jobs the employers provided; and (c) the services provided and the total cost of providing workforce development services under this chapter, including related administrative costs. (7) To the extent possible, the department of public health and human services shall offset the cost of workforce development activities provided under this section by using temporary assistance for needy families reserve funds. (8) The department shall reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in determining and reviewing eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits by enhancing technology system support to provide knowledge-based authentication for verifying the identity and employment status of individuals seeking benefits, including the use of public records to confirm identity and to flag changes in demographics. " Section 2. Repealer. Section 28, Chapter 368, Laws of 2015, sections 38 and 48, Chapter 415, Laws of 2019, section 17, Chapter 456, Laws of 2019, and sections 3 and 4, Chapter 318, Laws of 2021, are repealed. Section 3. Effective dates. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), [this act] is effective on passage and approval. (2) [Section 1] is effective on October 1, 2025.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jan 23, 2025 · S 205 · Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act · In CongressU.S. Congress · Montana delegation · S 205
Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act
Jan 23, 2025 · In Congress
Sen. Steve Daines · Sponsored / Sen. Tim Sheehy · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S. 205 proposes prohibiting an abortion performed with knowledge that a test, diagnosis or other reason to believe the fetus has or may have Down syndrome is wholly or partly why the woman seeks it. Providers would have to ask about that awareness and, if present, inform the woman of the prohibition. The proposal also prohibits specified coercion, solicitation or acceptance of funds, and knowing cross-border transport for such an abortion. Violations or attempts could carry up to five years in prison, a fine, or both. Medical or mental-health professionals would have to report known or suspected violations, with a separate penalty of up to one year, a fine, or both. Civil remedies and specified plaintiff restrictions apply. The abortion definition excludes the stated life-saving and dead-fetus-removal procedures, and the woman would not be prosecuted or held civilly liable under the section. The bill remains in Congress and establishes no new prohibition or change in Montana procedures.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions occurring in Montana, including care for nonresidents. Conditions on medication abortions and a proposed Down-syndrome-related prohibition concern subsets of those procedures; they do not establish changes in the number reported. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
3.Discrimination by abortion against an unborn child on the basis of Down syndrome prohibited(a)In generalChapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:251.Discrimination by abortion against an unborn child on the basis of Down syndrome prohibited(a)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)AbortionThe term abortion means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to—(A)kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or(B)terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—(i)to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive;(ii)to save the life of the pregnant woman; or(iii)to remove a dead unborn child.(2)Down syndromeThe term Down syndrome means a chromosomal disorder associated with—(A)an extra copy of the chromosome 21, in whole or in part; or(B)an effective trisomy for chromosome 21.(3)Qualified plaintiffThe term qualified plaintiff means—(A)a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this section;(B)a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this section is an unemancipated minor;(C)the father of an unborn child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of this section unless the pregnancy or abortion resulted from the criminal conduct of the father; or(D)the Attorney General.(4)Unborn childThe term unborn child means an individual of the species homo sapiens from the beginning of the biological development of that individual, including fertilization, until the point of being born alive, as defined in section 8(b) of title 1.(b)OffenseIt shall be unlawful to—(1)perform an abortion—(A)with the knowledge that a pregnant woman is seeking an abortion, in whole or in part, on the basis of—(i)a test result indicating that the unborn child has Down syndrome;(ii)a prenatal diagnosis that the unborn child has Down syndrome; or(iii)any other reason to believe that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome; or(B)without first—(i)asking the pregnant woman if she is aware of any test results, prenatal diagnosis, or any other evidence that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome; and(ii)if the woman is aware that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome, informing the pregnant woman of the prohibitions on abortion under this section;(2)use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing an abortion described in paragraph (1)(A);(3)solicit or accept funds for the performance of an abortion described in paragraph (1)(A); or(4)knowingly transport a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion described in paragraph (1)(A).(c)Criminal penaltyAny person that violates, or attempts to violate, subsection (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(d)Civil remedies(1)Civil action by woman on whom abortion is performedA woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted in violation of subsection (b)(2) may bring a civil action in an appropriate court against any person who engaged in a violation of subsection (b)(2) to obtain appropriate relief.(2)Civil action by relatives(A)In generalExcept as provided in subparagraph (B), the father of an unborn child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of subsection (b), or a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an unemancipated minor, may bring a civil action in an appropriate court against any person who engaged in the violation to obtain appropriate relief.(B)ExceptionsSubparagraph (A) shall not apply if—(i)the pregnancy or abortion resulted from the criminal conduct of the plaintiff described in subparagraph (A); or(ii)the plaintiff described in subparagraph (A) consented to the abortion.(3)Appropriate reliefAppropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—(A)objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned by the violation of this section; and(B)punitive damages.(4)Injunctive reliefA qualified plaintiff may bring a civil action in an appropriate court to obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this section.(5)Attorney’s fees for plaintiffThe court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.(e)Bar to prosecutionA woman upon whom an abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation of this section or for a conspiracy to violate this section.(f)Loss of Federal fundingA violation of subsection (b) shall be deemed discrimination for the purposes of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).(g)Reporting requirement(1)In generalA physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional shall report known or suspected violations of any of this section to appropriate law enforcement authorities.(2)Criminal penaltyAny person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.(h)Expedited considerationIt shall be the duty of the district courts of the United States, the courts of appeals of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter brought under this section.(i)Protection of privacy in court proceedings(1)In generalExcept to the extent the Constitution of the United States or other similarly compelling reason requires, in every civil or criminal action under this section, the court shall make such orders as are necessary to protect the anonymity of any woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she does not give her written consent to such disclosure. Such orders may be made upon motion, but shall be made sua sponte if not otherwise sought by a party.(2)Orders to parties, witnesses, and counselThe court shall issue appropriate orders to the parties, witnesses, and counsel and shall direct the sealing of the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or hearing rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard the identity of a woman described in paragraph (1) from public disclosure.(3)Pseudonym requiredIn the absence of written consent of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted, any party, other than a public official, who brings an action under this section shall do so under a pseudonym.(4)LimitationThis subsection may not be construed to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of witnesses from the defendant or from attorneys for the defendant.(j)Rule of construction(1)Greater protectionNothing in this section may be construed to pre-empt or limit any Federal, State or local law that provides greater protections for an unborn child than those provided in this section.(2)Creating or recognizing rightNothing in this section shall be construed as creating or recognizing a right to abortion nor shall it make lawful an abortion that is otherwise unlawful under Federal, State, or local law..(b)Clerical amendmentThe table of sections of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:251. Discrimination by abortion against an unborn child on the basis of Down syndrome prohibited..4.SeverabilityIf any portion of this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the portions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid portion or application.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Montana officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s Montana candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
40 statements from 6 candidates
2026 Montana U.S. House — District 1 — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 4 statements
Every Montanan should be able to work a good-paying job that allows them to afford housing, healthcare, childcare, and a good retirement. That’s not the case anymore for so many Montanans, but it can be.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Retirement security and Social Security
Candidate campaign source
Every Montanan should be able to work a good-paying job that allows them to afford housing, healthcare, childcare, and a good retirement. That’s not the case anymore for so many Montanans, but it can be.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Right now in this country, we deal with basic needs like housing and healthcare the same way that we deal with forest management and wildfire – we wait until it’s an absolute crisis, and then we pay for it in the most expensive, least effective way possible. Whether that’s a 60 year-old woman sittin…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Right now in this country, we deal with basic needs like housing and healthcare the same way that we deal with forest management and wildfire – we wait until it’s an absolute crisis, and then we pay for it in the most expensive, least effective way possible. Whether that’s a 60 year-old woman sitting in the emergency room because she couldn’t afford a primary care visit, or a wildfire burning into a subdivision because our leaders lacked the courage to invest in our public lands up front. We can spend our resources more wisely and solve the biggest problems facing our country by taking action now.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
For so many of us in Montana, the cost of just living here has reached crisis levels – but we’ve solved crises like these before, and we can solve them again by investing in affordable housing & childcare, reforming our broken healthcare system, and making corporations and the ultra-rich carry their…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
For so many of us in Montana, the cost of just living here has reached crisis levels – but we’ve solved crises like these before, and we can solve them again by investing in affordable housing & childcare, reforming our broken healthcare system, and making corporations and the ultra-rich carry their own weight just like the rest of us. For years now, national leaders in both parties have left working people in Montana behind. It’s time for a new generation of leadership to step up and make Congress finally work for working people.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
The top issues as I see them at present are as follows: Data Centers in Montana, the War in Iran, Healthcare, Affordability, and Agriculture. I believe our best days lie before us, but only if we get serious and come together as a Nation. It is time to turn the page on national rage and use evidence…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: The American way of life is under threat like never before
Candidate campaign source
The top issues as I see them at present are as follows: Data Centers in Montana, the War in Iran, Healthcare, Affordability, and Agriculture. I believe our best days lie before us, but only if we get serious and come together as a Nation. It is time to turn the page on national rage and use evidence-based, rational solutions to our problems.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
As your Representative in Congress, I will work in a bipartisan and fiscally responsible manner to protect Social Security and Medicare, and to deliver effective cost-of-living increases, without the need to raise the retirement age.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Retirement security and Social Security
Candidate campaign source
As your Representative in Congress, I will work in a bipartisan and fiscally responsible manner to protect Social Security and Medicare, and to deliver effective cost-of-living increases, without the need to raise the retirement age.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Any successful effort must first protect a person’s ability to see the doctor of their choice, and must retain coverage for preexisting conditions. I do not believe that a single-payer system will be workable, and if government-operated will inevitably raise taxes significantly. Above all else, I wi…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Any successful effort must first protect a person’s ability to see the doctor of their choice, and must retain coverage for preexisting conditions. I do not believe that a single-payer system will be workable, and if government-operated will inevitably raise taxes significantly. Above all else, I will fight hard to defend and protect rural healthcare in Montana.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
My own personal thoughts are that although I may not like the concept of abortion, as a physician I am professionally bound by higher concerns about adverse effects upon women’s reproductive health as well as potential increased maternal and fetal mortality that followed the 2022 Supreme Court rulin…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Reproductive rights
Candidate campaign source
My own personal thoughts are that although I may not like the concept of abortion, as a physician I am professionally bound by higher concerns about adverse effects upon women’s reproductive health as well as potential increased maternal and fetal mortality that followed the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case (which essentially overturned Roe v. Wade). Women should not have to travel across state lines to get desired or necessary medical care, nor should they have to blindly order prescriptions over the internet to get abortive medications in the absence of available supervisory medical care in their home states.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
If elected as your Representative, I will champion an effort to build temporary housing adjacent to existing VA facilities to shelter our displaced Veterans for up to 6 to 12 months, during which an emphasis on mental and physical healthcare can be effectively supported. This may take the form of do…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
If elected as your Representative, I will champion an effort to build temporary housing adjacent to existing VA facilities to shelter our displaced Veterans for up to 6 to 12 months, during which an emphasis on mental and physical healthcare can be effectively supported. This may take the form of dormitories or barracks-style living, with an employed social worker assigned to each facility to provide additional assistance with job-training, available VA or federal benefits, and to help arrange for longer-term and independent housing.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
The concept of “open borders” is not a good thing; the very high numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. place a significant economic burden upon our citizenry (think healthcare dollars for emergency care, consumption of resources and effects on housing).
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Immigration and border policy
Candidate campaign source
The concept of “open borders” is not a good thing; the very high numbers of illegal immigrants in the U.S. place a significant economic burden upon our citizenry (think healthcare dollars for emergency care, consumption of resources and effects on housing).
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Protect and properly fund Medicaid long-term care: raise reimbursement to the true cost of humane, dignified care so Montana’s nursing homes can staff up and stop closing, not just scrape by on bare-bones minimums.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
✓ Protect and properly fund Medicaid long-term care: raise reimbursement to the true cost of humane, dignified care so Montana’s nursing homes can staff up and stop closing, not just scrape by on bare-bones minimums.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Cover the whole body — put dental, vision, and hearing into Medicare (there’s a bill for it), and require real coverage in private and marketplace plans too, not skimpy add-ons.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Retirement security and Social Security
Candidate campaign source
✓ Cover the whole body — put dental, vision, and hearing into Medicare (there’s a bill for it), and require real coverage in private and marketplace plans too, not skimpy add-ons.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Protect the Medicaid dollars that pay for school services. Montana schools and cooperatives bill Medicaid for the speech, occupational and physical therapy, school psychologist, audiology and personal-care paraprofessional services written into a child’s IEP. A Medicaid cut is a special-education …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
✓ Protect the Medicaid dollars that pay for school services. Montana schools and cooperatives bill Medicaid for the speech, occupational and physical therapy, school psychologist, audiology and personal-care paraprofessional services written into a child’s IEP. A Medicaid cut is a special-education cut, and it lands hardest on the rural districts that already share those staff.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Protect Medicare Part D and the drug-cost relief it delivers: the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, $35 insulin, free vaccines, and Medicare drug-price negotiation.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Retirement security and Social Security
Candidate campaign source
✓ Protect Medicare Part D and the drug-cost relief it delivers: the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, $35 insulin, free vaccines, and Medicare drug-price negotiation.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Restore the ACA tax credits that just expired and doubled people’s premiums, add a public option you can choose, and close the Medicaid coverage gap.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
✓ Restore the ACA tax credits that just expired and doubled people’s premiums, add a public option you can choose, and close the Medicaid coverage gap.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Fund access to all reproductive healthcare, including contraception and disease prevention (Right to Contraception Act), and protect emergency and maternity care under EMTALA.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
✓ Fund access to all reproductive healthcare, including contraception and disease prevention (Right to Contraception Act), and protect emergency and maternity care under EMTALA.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Make veteran suicide prevention and mental-health care a front-line priority: the crisis hits hardest in rural states like ours, and the VA staff who answer that call are exactly who we cannot afford to lose.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
✓ Make veteran suicide prevention and mental-health care a front-line priority: the crisis hits hardest in rural states like ours, and the VA staff who answer that call are exactly who we cannot afford to lose.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
✓ Break up the health care monopolies: the vertically-integrated giants that own the insurer, the drug middleman (PBM), and the pharmacy all at once — three of them run about 80% of America’s prescriptions. When the company that sets your price also owns the pharmacy and the insurer that won’t pay, …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
✓ Break up the health care monopolies: the vertically-integrated giants that own the insurer, the drug middleman (PBM), and the pharmacy all at once — three of them run about 80% of America’s prescriptions. When the company that sets your price also owns the pharmacy and the insurer that won’t pay, you lose.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Defend Medicare against harmful changes , including any effort to raise the eligibility age or shift costs onto beneficiaries, while maintaining Medicare reimbursement rates for rural providers so seniors in small communities keep access to their local doctors.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Pillar One — Making The Montana Way of Life A Reality Again
Candidate campaign source
Defend Medicare against harmful changes , including any effort to raise the eligibility age or shift costs onto beneficiaries, while maintaining Medicare reimbursement rates for rural providers so seniors in small communities keep access to their local doctors.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026
This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published Montana candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Montana incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Montana legislators and Montana’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Montana’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
4 matching sponsorships or proposals · 4 Montana incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Ed Buttrey
Montana House of Representatives, District 21 · R–MT
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Ed ButtreyMontana Legislature · HB 245
AN ACT REVISING THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS AND THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE HEALTHY MONTANA HEALTH AND ECONOMIC LIVELIHOOD PARTNERSHIP ACT; REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTING FOR TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS; AMENDING SECTION 39-12-103, MCA; REPEALING SECTION 28, CHAPTER 368, LAWS OF 2015, SECTIONS 38 AND 48, CHAPTER 415, LAWS OF 2019, SECTION 17, CHAPTER 456, LAWS OF 2019, AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4, CHAPTER 318, LAWS OF 2021; AND PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATES
Mar 27, 2025 · Enacted · Chapter 35
Rep. Ed Buttrey · Sponsored / Rep. Eric Albus · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brad Barker · Co-sponsored / Rep. David Bedey · Co-sponsored / Rep. Julie Darling · Co-sponsored / Rep. Llew Jones · Co-sponsored / Rep. Valerie Moore · Co-sponsored / Rep. George Nikolakakos · Co-sponsored / Rep. Melissa Nikolakakos · Co-sponsored / Rep. Greg Oblander · Co-sponsored / Rep. Gary Parry · Co-sponsored / Rep. Curtis Schomer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Eric Tilleman · Co-sponsored / Rep. Ken Walsh · Co-sponsored / Sen. Bruce "Butch" Gillespie · Co-sponsored / Sen. Josh Kassmier · Co-sponsored / Sen. Gayle Lammers · Co-sponsored / Sen. Denley Loge · Co-sponsored / Sen. Wendy McKamey · Co-sponsored / Sen. Russ Tempel · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 245 repeals the HELP Act termination provisions and revises workforce-development services for people receiving expanded Medicaid coverage. It directs contact and assessment assistance for participants subject to community-engagement requirements and removes the requirement to contract for those services. The workforce section specifies October 1, 2025; other provisions specify passage and approval. This connection concerns continued coverage authority, not proof of enrollment, implementation of work requirements or an uninsured-rate change.
The legislative docket records “Signed by Governor” and chapter 35. The displayed date is the docket timestamp, not an independently verified original execution date. Enactment does not prove implementation or current enforceability.
Why this record is included
The fact measures the uninsured share of residents under 65. Repealing the HELP Act termination provisions concerns continued Medicaid eligibility for qualifying adults, a subset of that population. The relationship does not establish enrollment numbers or a change in the uninsured share. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. Section 39-12-103, MCA, is amended to read: "39-12-103. Montana HELP Act workforce development -- participation . (1) The department shall provide individuals receiving assistance for health care services pursuant to Title 53, chapter 6, part 13, with the option of participating in an employment or reemployment assessment in the workforce development program provided for in 39-12-101 to allow the participant to increase the participant's earning capacity and economic stability. The assessment must identify any probable barriers to employment that exist for the individual. (2) The department shall contact each program participant subject to the community engagement requirements of 53-6-1308 and assist the participant with completion of an employment or reemployment assessment. Based on the results of the assessment, the department shall provide the participant with workforce development services. (3) Allowable workforce development services include: (a) education and training; and (b) supportive services that assist a program participant with the items or services necessary to participate in the workforce, including but not limited to supportive services involving clothing, transportation, and equipment needed to obtain or maintain employment. (4) Entities contracting to provide workforce development services shall report quarterly to the department on the activities provided. At a minimum, the entities shall report on: (a) the number of clients enrolled in program activities and co-enrolled in other workforce programs; (b) the types of services provided; (c) the number of clients who attained a credential or gained a measurable skill; (d) the number of clients who exited the program; (e) the number of clients who exited the program to employment; (f) the number of clients who continued enrollment in the program; (g) the amount and type of outreach the entity has done to recruit program participants; and (h) the amount of money spent directly on participants. (5) (a) The department shall notify the department of public health and human services when a participant has received all services and assistance under subsection (1) that can reasonably be provided to the individual. (b) The department is not required to provide further services under this section after it has provided the notification provided for in subsection (5)(a). (c) A participant who is no longer receiving services under this section does not meet the criteria of 53-6-1307(6)(c) for the exemption granted under 53-6-1307(6). (6) The department shall report the following information to the legislative finance committee and the children, families, health, and human services interim committee in accordance with 5-11-210: (a) the activities undertaken to establish the employer grant program provided for in 39-12-106; (b) the number of employers receiving grant awards and the number and types of activities, training, or jobs the employers provided; and (c) the services provided and the total cost of providing workforce development services under this chapter, including related administrative costs. (7) To the extent possible, the department of public health and human services shall offset the cost of workforce development activities provided under this section by using temporary assistance for needy families reserve funds. (8) The department shall reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in determining and reviewing eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits by enhancing technology system support to provide knowledge-based authentication for verifying the identity and employment status of individuals seeking benefits, including the use of public records to confirm identity and to flag changes in demographics. " Section 2. Repealer. Section 28, Chapter 368, Laws of 2015, sections 38 and 48, Chapter 415, Laws of 2019, section 17, Chapter 456, Laws of 2019, and sections 3 and 4, Chapter 318, Laws of 2021, are repealed. Section 3. Effective dates. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), [this act] is effective on passage and approval. (2) [Section 1] is effective on October 1, 2025.
As introduced, HB 555 proposed conditions on knowingly providing or attempting to provide medication abortions in or affecting interstate commerce: an in-person examination, the provider’s physical presence, a scheduled follow-up occurring no more than seven days after drug administration or use, and a collection kit and medical waste bag with instructions to return them to the provider for disposal. Each provider violation could carry a felony penalty of up to $10,000, up to three years’ imprisonment, or both. The proposal excepted abortions necessary to preserve a life endangered by the specified physical conditions, barred patient prosecution under the section and preserved treatment of verified ectopic pregnancy. Separate provisions addressed manufacturer disposal duties. The bill died in process and did not become law.
The legislative docket records “Died in Process.” The displayed date is the docket timestamp. This proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions occurring in Montana, including care for nonresidents. Conditions on medication abortions and a proposed Down-syndrome-related prohibition concern subsets of those procedures; they do not establish changes in the number reported. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Conditions on providing chemical abortion affecting interstate commerce -- penalties. (1) A health care provider may not knowingly provide or attempt to provide a chemical abortion if the provision or attempt is in or affects interstate commerce without: (a) physically examining the patient; (b) being physically present at the location of the chemical abortion; (c) scheduling a follow-up visit to assess the patient's physical condition that must occur not more than 7 days after the administration or use of the drug; and (d) providing a catch kit and medical waste bag, including instructions for the patient to bring the catch kit and medical waste bag to the health care provider for proper disposal. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3), a health care provider who violates any provision of subsection (1)(a) through (1)(d) is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than $10,000 and imprisoned up to 3 years, or both, for each violation. (3) This section does not apply to a chemical abortion that is necessary to preserve the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life- endangering physical condition. (4) A patient on whom an abortion is performed may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section or conspiracy to violate this section. (5) Nothing in this section may be construed to have an impact on the treatment of a verified ectopic pregnancy.
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Andrea OlsenMontana Legislature · SB 531
Provide tax credit for purchase of a firearm safe
May 23, 2025 · Not enacted
Sen. Andrea Olsen · Sponsored / Sen. Sara Novak · Co-sponsored / Sen. Cora Neumann · Co-sponsored / Sen. Willis Curdy · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mary Ann Dunwell · Co-sponsored / Sen. Janet Ellis · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jacinda Morigeau · Co-sponsored / Sen. Susan Webber · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy · Co-sponsored / Sen. Ellie Boldman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Pat Flowers · Co-sponsored / Sen. Denise Hayman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Shane Morigeau · Co-sponsored / Sen. Christopher Pope · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
As introduced, SB 531 proposed a refundable individual income-tax credit equal to the purchase price of a qualifying firearm safe, capped at $300 per taxpayer per tax year and claimed in the year of purchase. A safe would have to meet the specified lock, boltwork, steel-construction and hinge-protection requirements and be certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory as meeting Underwriters Laboratories residential security container rating standards. The proposal would have applied to income tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2026. It died in process and did not establish a credit, a storage mandate or evidence that firearm deaths declined.
The legislative docket records “Died in Process.” The displayed date is the docket timestamp. This proposal did not become law.
Why this record is included
The CDC fact measures age-adjusted firearm deaths across intents. A proposed tax credit for firearm safes concerns secure storage and prevention policy. Safe purchases are not deaths, and the proposal does not demonstrate reduced mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Credit for purchase of firearm safe -- purpose. (1) There is a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the purchase of a firearm safe. (2) The credit allowed under this section must be claimed in the tax year in which the firearm safe is purchased and is equal to the purchase price of the firearm safe. The credit may not exceed $300 a taxpayer in a tax year. (3) The credit must be refunded if the taxpayer has a tax liability less than the credit claimed. (4) To claim the credit, a firearm safe: (a) must be a secure and protective storage container for one or more firearms: (i) that fully contains a firearm and provides for its safe storage; (ii) that has a locking system consisting of a mechanical or electronic combination lock that has at least 10,000 possible combinations consisting of a minimum of three numbers, letters, or symbols. The lock must be protected by a case-hardened, drill-resistant steel plate or drill-resistant material of equivalent strength. (iii) with boltwork that consists of a minimum of three locking steel bolts of at least 1/2-inch thickness that intrude from the door of the safe into the body of the safe or from the body of the safe into the door of the safe and that are operated by a separate handle and secured by the lock; (iv) that is capable of repeated use. The exterior walls must be constructed of a minimum 12-gauge steel for a single-walled safe, or the sum of the steel walls must add up to at least one-tenth of an inch for safes with two walls. Doors must be constructed of a minimum of one layer of 7-gauge steel plate reinforced construction or at least two layers of a minimum of 12-gauge steel compound construction. (v) with door hinges that are protected to prevent the removal of the door. Protective features include but are not limited to hinges not exposed to the outside, interlocking door designs, dead bars, jeweler's lugs, and active or inactive locking bolts. (b) must fully contain the firearm, provide for secure storage, and be certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory as meeting underwriters laboratories residential security container rating standards. (5) Pursuant to 5-4-104, the legislature finds that the purpose of the tax credit provided for in this section is to encourage the purchase of firearm safes to promote community and family safety.
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Steve DainesU.S. Congress · Montana delegation · S 205
Protecting Individuals with Down Syndrome Act
Jan 23, 2025 · In Congress
Sen. Steve Daines · Sponsored / Sen. Tim Sheehy · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S. 205 proposes prohibiting an abortion performed with knowledge that a test, diagnosis or other reason to believe the fetus has or may have Down syndrome is wholly or partly why the woman seeks it. Providers would have to ask about that awareness and, if present, inform the woman of the prohibition. The proposal also prohibits specified coercion, solicitation or acceptance of funds, and knowing cross-border transport for such an abortion. Violations or attempts could carry up to five years in prison, a fine, or both. Medical or mental-health professionals would have to report known or suspected violations, with a separate penalty of up to one year, a fine, or both. Civil remedies and specified plaintiff restrictions apply. The abortion definition excludes the stated life-saving and dead-fetus-removal procedures, and the woman would not be prosecuted or held civilly liable under the section. The bill remains in Congress and establishes no new prohibition or change in Montana procedures.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions occurring in Montana, including care for nonresidents. Conditions on medication abortions and a proposed Down-syndrome-related prohibition concern subsets of those procedures; they do not establish changes in the number reported. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Montana evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
3.Discrimination by abortion against an unborn child on the basis of Down syndrome prohibited(a)In generalChapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:251.Discrimination by abortion against an unborn child on the basis of Down syndrome prohibited(a)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)AbortionThe term abortion means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to—(A)kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or(B)terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—(i)to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive;(ii)to save the life of the pregnant woman; or(iii)to remove a dead unborn child.(2)Down syndromeThe term Down syndrome means a chromosomal disorder associated with—(A)an extra copy of the chromosome 21, in whole or in part; or(B)an effective trisomy for chromosome 21.(3)Qualified plaintiffThe term qualified plaintiff means—(A)a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this section;(B)a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this section is an unemancipated minor;(C)the father of an unborn child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of this section unless the pregnancy or abortion resulted from the criminal conduct of the father; or(D)the Attorney General.(4)Unborn childThe term unborn child means an individual of the species homo sapiens from the beginning of the biological development of that individual, including fertilization, until the point of being born alive, as defined in section 8(b) of title 1.(b)OffenseIt shall be unlawful to—(1)perform an abortion—(A)with the knowledge that a pregnant woman is seeking an abortion, in whole or in part, on the basis of—(i)a test result indicating that the unborn child has Down syndrome;(ii)a prenatal diagnosis that the unborn child has Down syndrome; or(iii)any other reason to believe that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome; or(B)without first—(i)asking the pregnant woman if she is aware of any test results, prenatal diagnosis, or any other evidence that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome; and(ii)if the woman is aware that the unborn child has or may have Down syndrome, informing the pregnant woman of the prohibitions on abortion under this section;(2)use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing an abortion described in paragraph (1)(A);(3)solicit or accept funds for the performance of an abortion described in paragraph (1)(A); or(4)knowingly transport a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion described in paragraph (1)(A).(c)Criminal penaltyAny person that violates, or attempts to violate, subsection (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.(d)Civil remedies(1)Civil action by woman on whom abortion is performedA woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted in violation of subsection (b)(2) may bring a civil action in an appropriate court against any person who engaged in a violation of subsection (b)(2) to obtain appropriate relief.(2)Civil action by relatives(A)In generalExcept as provided in subparagraph (B), the father of an unborn child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of subsection (b), or a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an unemancipated minor, may bring a civil action in an appropriate court against any person who engaged in the violation to obtain appropriate relief.(B)ExceptionsSubparagraph (A) shall not apply if—(i)the pregnancy or abortion resulted from the criminal conduct of the plaintiff described in subparagraph (A); or(ii)the plaintiff described in subparagraph (A) consented to the abortion.(3)Appropriate reliefAppropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—(A)objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned by the violation of this section; and(B)punitive damages.(4)Injunctive reliefA qualified plaintiff may bring a civil action in an appropriate court to obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this section.(5)Attorney’s fees for plaintiffThe court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.(e)Bar to prosecutionA woman upon whom an abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation of this section or for a conspiracy to violate this section.(f)Loss of Federal fundingA violation of subsection (b) shall be deemed discrimination for the purposes of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).(g)Reporting requirement(1)In generalA physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, counselor, or other medical or mental health professional shall report known or suspected violations of any of this section to appropriate law enforcement authorities.(2)Criminal penaltyAny person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.(h)Expedited considerationIt shall be the duty of the district courts of the United States, the courts of appeals of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any matter brought under this section.(i)Protection of privacy in court proceedings(1)In generalExcept to the extent the Constitution of the United States or other similarly compelling reason requires, in every civil or criminal action under this section, the court shall make such orders as are necessary to protect the anonymity of any woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she does not give her written consent to such disclosure. Such orders may be made upon motion, but shall be made sua sponte if not otherwise sought by a party.(2)Orders to parties, witnesses, and counselThe court shall issue appropriate orders to the parties, witnesses, and counsel and shall direct the sealing of the record and exclusion of individuals from courtrooms or hearing rooms to the extent necessary to safeguard the identity of a woman described in paragraph (1) from public disclosure.(3)Pseudonym requiredIn the absence of written consent of the woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted, any party, other than a public official, who brings an action under this section shall do so under a pseudonym.(4)LimitationThis subsection may not be construed to conceal the identity of the plaintiff or of witnesses from the defendant or from attorneys for the defendant.(j)Rule of construction(1)Greater protectionNothing in this section may be construed to pre-empt or limit any Federal, State or local law that provides greater protections for an unborn child than those provided in this section.(2)Creating or recognizing rightNothing in this section shall be construed as creating or recognizing a right to abortion nor shall it make lawful an abortion that is otherwise unlawful under Federal, State, or local law..(b)Clerical amendmentThe table of sections of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:251. Discrimination by abortion against an unborn child on the basis of Down syndrome prohibited..4.SeverabilityIf any portion of this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the portions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid portion or application.
Only current Montana officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Montana statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Montana snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Montana, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.