Idahoans United for Women and Families, a pro-abortion group, has filed four proposals with the offices of state attorney general and secretary of state in an effort to receive approval for a ballot initiative to allow babies to be targeted for death by abortion in the state.
Currently, Idaho’s Defense of Life Act allows abortion only when the mother’s life is at risk (though induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child — is not medically necessary) or in cases of rape or incest, discriminating against the child in the first trimester based on his or her means of conception.
“We’ve worked on these for a year now with stakeholders and lawyers, and we want to put that work in front of the secretary of state and the attorney general and, quite frankly, in front of the public, and then we will decide on the best course of action moving forward,” Melaine Fowell, organizer and spokesperson for the pro-abortion group said.
Similarities in first three proposals
The first three of the four proposed policies would make abortion a ‘right’ and ensure that no state law could be passed to “directly or indirectly infringe, burden, or prohibit in any way any person’s voluntary exercise of the right to reproductive freedom and privacy nor infringe, burden, or prohibit any acts or omissions taken by a person or entity to assist or facilitate an individual’s exercise of the right to reproductive freedom and privacy unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Each is called the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, and each defines “abortion” or “abortion care” as “the use of any means that are consistent with widely accepted medical standards necessary for the procedure or treatment to intentionally terminate a pregnancy.”
READ: Montana Supreme Court says minors have a ‘right’ to abortion in ‘radical and out-of-touch’ ruling
This definition of abortion is problematic because Idaho’s definition is different. Idaho Code § 18-604 defines abortion as “the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child… (emphasis added). The state’s definition also notes that abortion does not include miscarriage care, treatment for ectopic pregnancy or molar pregnancy, or the treatment of a woman who is no longer pregnant.
The differences between these two opposing definitions are striking because even induced preterm delivery or emergency C-section carried out to save the mother and child are procedures that “intentionally terminated a pregnancy” but they do not intentionally cause the child’s death as Idaho defines as abortion to do.
Idahoans for Women and Families appears to be conflated ending a pregnancy through induced delivery with ending the preborn child’s life through induced abortion. They are not the same.
Differences in the proposals
In the first proposed policy, abortion would be allowed for any reason through 20 weeks of gestation.
In the second proposed policy, abortion would be guaranteed as a ‘right’ through 24 weeks of gestation.
In the third proposed policy, abortion would be guaranteed until “fetal viability,” which is defined by the policy as “the point in a pregnancy when in the good faith judgment of an attending health care professional at the time, the fetus has a significant likelihood of sustained survival outside of the uterus without the applicant of extraordinary medical measures.”
This means that whether or not to the preborn baby was considered “viable” at any point in pregnancy would be up to the discretion of the abortionist because children are not considered full term until 39 weeks. “Extraordinary medical measures” is not defined by the proposal and therefore could include any assistance a baby might need if born ‘prematurely.’
The fourth proposed policy is called the Right to Abortion Under Certain Circumstances. It would make abortion a ‘right’ if “when in the good faith clinical judgment of the pregnant patient’s attending physician an abortion is necessary to protect or maintain the pregnant patient’s physical health or life, or in the case of a medical emergency.”
It would also make abortion a right in cases of “fetal anomaly” in which the baby is determined “unlikely to survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention” or if the baby’s “condition is unlikely to result in a live birth.” This directly targets children with disabilities for death even though the diagnosis does not have to be proven and “extraordinary medical intervention” is not defined.
The fourth policy would also make abortion a ‘right’ before viability when a child is conceived in cases of rape or incest. Again, viability is defined as “the point in a pregnancy when in the good faith judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case known to the health care professional at the time, the fetus has a significant likelihood of sustained survival outside of the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures” — with “extraordinary medical measures” left undefined.
If one of these policies is approved for the ballot and then approved by voters, it would take effect on January 1, 2027.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act made headlines in June when the United States Supreme Court issued guidance in the Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States cases by choosing to return them to a lower court. This ruling left in place an injunction limiting enforcement of the pro-life law and forcing Idaho hospitals receiving Medicaid funding to commit abortions as “stabilizing care” in compliance with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
