BOISE, Idaho – The Idaho Supreme Court has approved the latest try at an adequate description of an abortion vote in the state that could overturn its existing pro-life policy.
A ruling earlier this month ordered state officials to rework a short title for Proposition One, also known as the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act. Their efforts in the following days were rewarded Sept. 8 when the court approved new language.
The order last week declared statements on both what a “yes” vote and a “no” vote means were insufficient, in the second time the issue had been before the court. The group pushing the measure, Idahoans United for Women & Families, supported simple explanations declaring “yes” means Prop One would become state law, and “no” meant abortion laws would remain unchanged.
The revised titles go much further. When the issue appears on a ballot in November, voters will see:
“A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability— defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures—and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy.”
“A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children by prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.”
A short explanation on the court’s reasoning says those statements “substantially comply” with state law, over Idahoan United’s objection to them.
The previous No statement failed to explain that abortions in rape and incest cases are only allowed in the first trimester. The previous Yes statement failed to mention privacy governing reproductive healthcare decisions beyond abortion.
Justice Colleen Zahn had no problems with the new Yes statement but felt differently about the No statement. She complains that it introduces new terminology not found in abortion laws, the Yes statement or in the ballot materials, like “preborn children.”
And that’s not her only gripe. She wrote that the No statement only restates one aspect of Idaho’s current law, though the Yes statement proposes several changes.
“The consequence of this is that, while the Yes Statement addresses four distinctive characteristics of the Initiative, the No Statement only addresses current Idaho law on one,” she wrote.
“The revised No Statement fails to substantially comply because it does not clearly advise the voter of current Idaho law concerning licensing, civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers.”
