Proposition One: Reproductive Freedom & Privacy Act

The law today

Idaho's existing laws ban nearly all abortions, with exceptions to prevent the death of the pregnant woman and, in the first trimester, in cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement; providers face felony penalties, licensing penalties and civil suits (Idaho Capital Sun). The Secretary of State's voter pamphlet describes current law the same way in its "What your vote will do" text, and its long ballot title says the measure's "medical emergency" exception would expand Idaho's current life exception.[4][3]

Official fiscal estimate

The Idaho Division of Financial Management estimates state expenditures would increase by $3,100 to $7,800 a year, less than 0.001 percent of the state share of the Medicaid budget, based on assumed Medicaid-covered complications from chemical abortions (about 300 Medicaid recipients, with complications for 6 to 15 of them at an average state cost of about $531). It says it "cannot in good faith conclude that the proposed initiative will have no fiscal impact on state expenditures." The sponsors' funding source statement says the act creates no new financial obligation and has no effect on taxes.[3]

Arguments made for

• Argument for, provided by Idahoans United for Women & Families (bullets in the pamphlet): “Voting YES would restore the standard Idaho operated under for nearly 50 years, with health and life exceptions to the abortion ban, including cases of fatal fetal diagnosis.” and “Voting YES would protect doctors and nurses from criminal prosecution for providing standard medical care, at a time when Idaho is already losing OB-GYNs, family doctors, and emergency physicians.”[1]
• Argument for, provided by Idahoans United for Women & Families (bullets in the pamphlet): “Voting YES does NOT create public funding for abortion, nor does it force any provider to violate their conscience.” and “Voting YES does NOT change Idaho’s current parental consent laws: all healthcare for minors would still require the permission of a parent or guardian.”[1]
• Rebuttal to the arguments against, provided by Idahoans United for Women & Families: “Abortion remains illegal after viability under Proposition One, except when a doctor determines it is medically necessary to protect the woman’s life or health.”[1]

Arguments made against

• Argument against, provided by the Idaho Family Policy Center, Idaho Chooses Life, Right to Life Idaho, Too Extreme for Idaho, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise: “Prop 1 claims to allow abortions only to the point of ‘viability’ but throws out the longstanding definition of that term. Idaho law has always defined ‘fetal viability’ as the point at which a baby could ‘potentially live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.’ But Prop 1 redefines viability as the point when a baby has a ‘significant likelihood of sustained survival without extraordinary medical measures.’”[1]
• Argument against (same authors): “Prop 1 also eliminates the longstanding safety requirement that only doctors can perform abortions. It replaces ‘physician’ with the vague term ‘health care provider,’ which it defines as any ‘licensed person or entity that provides health care or medical treatment.’”[1]
• Argument against (same authors): “But perhaps the most shocking of all? Prop 1 authorizes ‘health care providers’ to perform abortions on teenage girls behind the backs of their parents, overturning parental consent requirements. That’s because Prop 1 creates a right to abortion for ‘every person’ regardless of age, making abortion the only procedure that could be performed on a child without parental involvement.”[1]

On record in support

• Idahoans United for Women & Families (sponsor; its PAC is chaired by Meridian OB-GYN Becky Uranga)[3][4]

On record in opposition

• Too Extreme for Idaho (PAC chaired by Katherine Heffner)[3][4]
• Idaho Family Policy Center[3]
• Idaho Chooses Life[3]
• Right to Life Idaho[3]
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise[3]