He said he would sign the bill prohibiting state enforcement of the federal law's individual health insurance mandate if it includes a "legislative finding" that says the mandate would impose unneeded costs because it has "no low-cost public health insurance option."

Rep. Art Wittich, R-Bozeman, the sponsor of SB125, said Friday he's adamantly opposed to the public option, but isn't sure whether he wants to accept Schweitzer's change and let the mandate-enforcement prohibition become law.

"What I need to do is talk to some of the other legislators who are familiar with our state-based health reforms, and get their counsel," he said.

***

On SB106, Schweitzer's veto said the bill should "encourage" rather than "require" Bullock to file suit against the federal health reform law, because the attorney general should use his own "independent judgment ... on how to litigate on behalf of the state."

Then, he threw in a kicker: Joining the lawsuit would cost the state money, which has to come from somewhere - and that somewhere is the pocket of GOP legislators who voted for the bill.