17 Montana Republicans Cross Party Lines, Defeat Anti-Trans Bill After Nonbinary Rep's Speech

Representative Howell delivered a speech against SB164, a bill that would charge parents with child abuse for providing gender affirming care even if they were merely driving through the state.

On Tuesday, Montana’s House considered Senate Bill 164, legislation that would classify gender-affirming care for transgender youth as felony child endangerment. The bill would not only target doctors and nurses, but also parents—including those merely passing through the state. Though the vote was expected to be close, a powerful floor speech from Representative SJ Howell prompted a wave of Republican defections. The bill was defeated 40–58, becoming one of several anti-trans proposals to fail this year following strong speeches by Montana’s transgender and nonbinary lawmakers.

The bill stated that “a person, whether or not the person is supervising the welfare of the child, commits the offense of endangering the welfare of children” if they “knowingly procure” gender-affirming care for a transgender youth. The definition of “a person” is broad, encompassing parents, nurses, and anyone else providing such care. It makes no exception for care obtained legally out of state—simply bringing prescribed medication across state lines could render a Montana parent a felon. The bill also does not limit enforcement to Montana residents; even a parent visiting Glacier National Park or Yellowstone with their transgender child could face felony charges for carrying estrogen, testosterone, or puberty blockers.

“There’s a lot of concerns I have about the broadness of this bill, and also the use of felony criminal charges to regulate medical care,” said nonbinary representative SJ Howell. “We have a lot of tools at our disposal as the legislature to regulate healthcare, but felony criminal charges are not the appropriate tool for that job. Lastly, but certainly not least, this bill has a lot of concern for me about parental rights. At the end of the day, there are a lot of parents of trans kids that are just doing what they believe is best for their kids. This criminalizes those parents.”

Watch their speech here:

Following the bill’s presentation, Republican Representative Barker stood to oppose it. While he said he “respect[ed] what the sponsor is trying to do,” he ultimately opposed the bill, calling it “the wrong approach,” “overly broad,” and a measure that “creates risk for our medical community.” He added that he “does not like the thought of criminalizing parents.”

When the vote was called, the bill failed 40-58, with 17 Republicans crossing party lines to join Democrats in voting against it.

The vote in Montana echoed earlier battles over transgender rights in the state. Just weeks ago, mass Republican defections followed powerful speeches from Representative Zephyr on a proposed drag ban and from Representative Howell on a bill that would have defined transition as child abuse. A forced outing bill also recently failed in the state’s education committee. Montana is quickly becoming a model for how representation and principled resistance can defeat anti-trans legislation—even in a state dominated by the Republican Party.

The victories in Montana stand in stark contrast to the handful of Democrats and pundits suggesting that transgender people are a political liability. While figures like Gavin Newsom signal retreat on issues like transgender athletics and gender-affirming care, and think tanks urge compromise, voters have delivered a different message. From Governor Andy Beshear’s win in deep-red Kentucky after vetoing an anti-trans sports ban, to Judge Susan Crawford’s decisive victory in Wisconsin despite a flood of anti-trans spending and anti-democratic actions from Elon Musk, the evidence is clear: standing up for transgender rights is not a losing strategy. Montana’s trans and nonbinary legislators only underscore the point—defending transgender people is not just morally right, it is politically possible.