Four years ago, Montana Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a series of laws aimed at safeguarding children in the womb.

Yet in a move which has left GOP members seething, Montana's Supreme Court has just struck all of them down. 

State "has no role in proclaiming when a fetus is viable"

According to the Montana Free Press, that came in the form of a nearly unanimous decision issued by the state's highest judicial body on Monday.

"The government, whether through the Legislature or the courts, has no role in proclaiming when a fetus is viable over the judgment of a medical provider working with an individual to make private, autonomous decisions about their own health," Justice Beth Baker wrote in her majority opinion.

"A fixed gestational age that does not allow a provider’s case-specific determination fails to ensure that the government does not interfere with an individual’s private medical decisions," she continued.

"Until a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb, the right of personal autonomy belongs to the person on whose body the fetus depends," the opinion stated.

Future abortion laws can only protect patients

Baker wrote that the court found "no legal authority for the idea that the State’s interest in preserving fetal life, or the fetus’s right to life, takes precedence over all constitutional protections and dignities of the mother."

The Free Press noted that the Montana Supreme Court also laid out a new framework under which future abortion laws are to be evaluated.

Going forward, lawmakers must justify restrictions by demonstrating that they protect patients from a bona fide health risk.

The court found that Montana's 20-week abortion ban failed that test, since while the state asserted "that poor mental health outcomes" arise from late-term abortion," it did not consider "psychological and emotional impacts as a basis for permitting abortion past 20 weeks."

"This suggests that a person’s mental health matters to the State only to prevent abortion, not as a valid reason to obtain one," the court concluded.

Dissent: State has "no greater interest" than protecting life

The Free Press noted that a lone dissent was authored by Justice Jim Rice, who wrote, "The State has no greater interest than the protection and preservation of human life."

"Essential to both personal and societal survival, the mere action of ascribing the protection of human life a 'compelling interest' is to undermine it by failing to capture its full significance," he asserted.

"Preservation of human life is, of course, completely necessary for the survival of our species and our government," the justice went on to contend.