Anti trans laws in Montana just died, thanks to 29 Republicans switching at the last minute.
The laws, HB 675 and HB 754, were two anti trans laws that the Montana state legislature had up for debate.
In a stunning and arguably jaw dropping moment in the Montana state house, two anti trans laws, HB 675 and 754, two of the states latest attacks toward the trans community, died after powerful speeches from Montana Democrats, which caused 29 ( yes, 29) Republicans to switch sides, killing the bills.
Lets go over the laws and the atmosphere that caused these switches.
The first bill, HB 675, sought to bring a private right to action against drag kings or queens and people who “knowingly promotes, conducts, or participates as a performer” in a drag show.
Quick aside, I honestly do not know how drag shows can be deemed sexual, because, at least the drag shows that I have seen, aren’t this sexual impurity that Republicans frame it as, they’re actually pretty damn neat and colorful, but that’s besides the point.
Back on topic, the law then says that the minors parents can bring action on their behalf, saying:
22 (b) reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the action; and
This law doesn’t make any sense. What would be the line for psychological damage?
Oh no, little Timmy saw a drag queen? Let me sue the organizers of the drag show, and lie out my ass saying that my child suffered psychological damage? What’s that?
That same drag queen came to little Timmy’s library? Sue the school district!
My point is, what’s the line for the damage? What would the courts, and the Montana legislature describe as “psychological, emotional, economic, and physical harm”? It’s intentionally broad and it makes me think that it’s by design, in order to use it to clamp down on things as simple as a drag queen reading a library book to young kids.
The second law, however, is much more sinister.
HB754 aims to flat out just take trans kids from their parents. No, I did not mistype. Let that sentence sink in for a second. A law was written to flat out take trans children from their parents and place them in a protective facility.
"41-3-301. Emergency protective services. (1) (a) (i) Any child protection specialist of the department, a peace officer, or the county attorney who has reason to believe any child is in immediate or apparent danger of harm may immediately remove the child and place the child in a protective facility. After ensuring that the child is safe, the department may make a request for further assistance from the law enforcement agency or take appropriate legal action.
(ii) For the purposes of this subsection (1), a child transitioning gender with the support of a parent or guardian is considered in immediate or apparent danger of harm.
Oh my god. What the actual?
First off, please define the definition of harm in this scenario. How would a parent who is helping their child be themselves be harming them? How would a parent getting their child the life saving meds that they need to survive?
I know that both of these laws were written by Republican lawmakers in Montana, who are heavily misinformed, but my God are these bills cruel. HB 754 especially, like you’re seriously trying to make the claim that a trans child who is being abused, or excuse me, “in immediate or apparent danger of harm” by their parents, who aren’t committing any crimes, just trying to help their kid, and because of that supposed abuse, you separate the child and the parents?
Are you actually being serious right now?
However, something happened.
When the laws were brought for a vote, two lawmakers stepped up, with both delivering powerful speeches. Those Reps. being Zooey Zephyr, (Erin Reed’s wife), and SJ Howell.
Zephyr went first, sounding exasperated:
"Here I am again to rise on another bill targeting the LGBTQ+ community," she said, exasperated. "At its very core, drag is art. It is very beautiful art. It has a deep history in this country, and it is important to my community. You know, if you are a woman in this body wearing a suit today, you are in some way challenging gender norms that existed long ago… There were three-article-of-clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender, they could stop you, arrest you… it was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ+ bar that led to the Stonewall riots, one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history," she began.
“When the sponsor closed on this bill, he said, this bill is needed… and I quote his words… ‘because transgenderism is a fetish based on crossdressing.’ And I am here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud within a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to walk him to school, that’s not a lascivious display. That is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after… not obscene shows in front of children, we have the Miller test for that, we have laws for that. This is a way to target the trans community, and that is in my opinion, and in the speaker’s own words.”
I am genuinely at a loss of words reading this, honestly. Poignantly said, with fire.
Well said, Rep. Zephyr. Well said.
Then, a Republican lawmaker goes to bat for Rep. Zephyr, defending her and chastising the lawmakers in the process:
“I’m speaking as a parent and a grandmother. And I’m very emotional because I know the representative in seat 20 is also a parent. No matter what you think of that, she is doing her best to raise a child. I did my best to raise my children as I saw fit, and I’m taking it for granted that my children are going to raise my grandchildren as they see fit.”
“Everybody in here talks about how important parental rights are. I want to tell you, in addition to parental rights, parental responsibility is also important. And if you can’t trust a decent parent to decide where and when their kids should see what, then we have a bigger problem.”
With her going on to further chastise the lawmakers for even thinking about doing this, which if you ask me, is a perfectly reasonable thing to be wondering. People sent you to go work on lowering grocery taxes and stuff like that, and your out here trying to take trans kids away from their parents. It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to be asking “Why are we doing this?”
However, its gets better. As if Rep. Zephyr talking wasn’t enough, remember when I mentioned that there were two lawmakers who gave powerful speeches? Well, we have another one, this time from Rep SJ Howell, saying of HB 754,
"I stand to oppose this bill… When a state intervenes to remove a child from their family, that is one of the most serious and weighty responsibilities that the state has. That is not something to be taken lightly. Every time a child is removed from their family, it’s a tragedy. Sometimes a necessary tragedy, but a tragedy nonetheless. This bill does not come close to the seriousness with which those decisions should be contemplated."
with them going on to explain the bills blatant vagueness and how it could be weaponized:
"Transitioning gender is not defined in this bill… so what does that mean? Maybe it means, as the sponsor said, surgery or medical treatment. Maybe it means therapy, mental healthcare. Maybe it means a kid who gets a haircut and a new set of clothes. Maybe a name change… a legal name change, or someone who wants to try out a different name… a strict reading of this bill could include all of that."
I am not even coming close to doing this justice. Major, major ups to Erin Reed for uploading this video that shows this whole thing, as it happened, live:
Now when the first bill came on the floor, it caused 13 Republicans to cross the aisle to vote against it, which was surprising on its own. However, this time with the second bill, it lead to a full complete fracture of the party, with 29 Republicans jumping over and voting against it. 29! Meaning, if we do the math, that adds up to FORTY-TWO Republicans that crossed the aisle and voted against these two bills.
Now, is there a possibility that the same Republicans voted no for the bills? Yeah, its possible. But forty-two Republicans actually showing empathy, and voting no against these cruel bills is a sight to behold, especially in a red state like Montana.