Interim study of the medical response to COVID-19
Senate Joint Resolution 50 requests an interim legislative study of the short-term and long-term effects of the medical response to COVID-19. The resolution directs the Legislative Council to assign the study to an interim or statutory committee, or to staff, to review the COVID-19 vaccine, remdesivir, dexamethasone, and other treatments used during the pandemic. It also specifically asks the study to examine the benefits of ivermectin, the outcomes of Montana’s Right to Try Act as it relates to COVID-19 and long COVID, and experimental treatments intended to mitigate harms from COVID-19 infection, vaccines, or federally recommended treatments.
The resolution requires that the study be completed by September 15, 2026, and that the final findings, conclusions, comments, or recommendations be reported to the 70th Legislature. Because it is a joint resolution, SJ 50 would not itself change substantive law; instead, it would direct legislative study activity and potentially generate recommendations for future legislation or policy changes. The measure died in standing committee after a failed motion, so no study was authorized under this resolution.
SJ 50 would have affected legislative operations rather than directly amending Montana statutes. It would have tasked the Legislative Council with commissioning an interim study under section 5-5-217, MCA, and could have involved committee or staff resources to evaluate pandemic-related medical treatments, the Right to Try Act, and possible treatment options for long COVID and vaccine-related harms. The practical effect would have been to create an official legislative review process that could inform future changes to public health, medical practice, or patient-rights laws, but it would not itself have altered the legal standards governing treatment or vaccination.
The bill appears to have been driven by skepticism toward the federal COVID-19 medical response and concern about patient harm, medical freedom, and treatment choices. Its findings section reflects a critical view of vaccines, remdesivir, dexamethasone, and federal incentives, while emphasizing interest in alternative treatments such as ivermectin and experimental therapies. The voting history suggests the proposal did not have broad support in the Senate, as a motion failed 20-30 after an earlier 11-0 committee vote to table the measure.
The main points of contention were the bill’s premise and the treatments it singled out. Supporters framed the study as a way to examine alleged harms from federal COVID-19 policies, the benefits of ivermectin, and the use of experimental or right-to-try treatments. Opponents likely objected to the resolution’s underlying assumptions about vaccines and federally recommended therapies, as well as its focus on controversial or disputed treatments. The failed motion and the bill’s death in standing committee indicate that these concerns prevented the resolution from advancing.