Proposition One has been at the center of statewide debates this election season due to its controversial subject matter, as it seeks to repeal the near-total abortion ban Idaho currently upholds by changing the verbiage of the law.
Idaho’s current abortion law, which can be found on the Idaho Legislature website, states that “every person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion as defined in this chapter commits the crime of criminal abortion,” and is eligible to serve between two and five years in prison while incurring fines. As outlined by the law, the only instances when an abortion may be performed is when the life of the mother is at immediate risk, or during the first trimester in cases of rape or incest, though the individual receiving the abortion had to have filed a police report of the crime beforehand.
Prop 1 seeks to largely decriminalize abortion. As stated on the VoteIdaho website, Prop 1 is a, “measure creating right to abortion before fetus viability, and post-viability to protect health; right to privacy; healthcare provider liability protections.”
In more specific language, it would allow women the “right to abortion up to the point of the fetus’s ability to survive outside the womb. After fetal viability, there would be no general right to abortion except in cases of ‘medical emergency,’” as stated on VoteIdaho.
A citizen-ballot initiative championed by the organization Idahoans United for Women and Families (IUWF), Prop 1 seeks to amend the current abortion law that was established in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision triggered Idaho’s abortion ban.
A list of pros and cons for passing Prop 1 is listed on the VoteIdaho website, providing a platform for organizations across the state to voice their opinion on the subject.
The pros IUWF gave for passing Prop 1 include but are not limited to: Restoring the medical standard that Idaho operated on for nearly 50 years, protecting healthcare providers from being criminally prosecuted for providing standard medical care and protecting reproductive care that Idaho families count on daily.
The cons were provided by Idaho Family Policy Center, Idaho Chooses Life, Right to Life Idaho, Too Extreme for Idaho, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise. Their reasons for opposing Prop 1 include but are not limited to: It’s a “backdoor attempt” to legalize late-stage abortions, it redefines fetal ‘viability’ and it would allow healthcare providers to perform abortions on minors without parental consent.
Each group’s rebuttal to the other’s points are listed on the same web page.
Many candidates running for a variety of positions this election season have voiced their opinions on Prop 1 publicly, both in interviews and on their campaign platforms.
Those who have publicly supported Prop 1 include independent Governor candidates Terri Pickens and John Stegner, as well as US Senator candidate Todd Achilles among others. Their stances on the subject can be found on their candidate websites.
“Women, not the government, should be able to make their own choices related to family planning. The state has no business telling doctors what to do,” Pickens says on her website.
Those who have publicly voiced opposition to Prop 1 include Governor incumbent Brad Little, US Senator incumbent Jim Risch and US Representative incumbent Russ Fulcher. Their opinions can be found across their campaign platforms, as well as on the Idaho GOP website.
“I am voting no on Proposition 1,” Gov. Little is quoted on the GOP website. “It would allow girls under 18 to receive abortion without parental consent, and it would make abortion far more accessible in Idaho. Proposition 1 simply goes too far.”
In Moscow, UI students hold their own opinions on Prop 1.
Connor DeFrain, a senior in finance, explains his perspective on the proposition is rooted in “the actual data and consequences of the current policies, and the circumstances that occur to the people living under them,” rather than moral and religious reasoning.
“Logically, I think we’re missing half the picture here. At some point, you have to separate what a law is intended to accomplish from what it’s actually accomplishing,” DeFrain stated. “There’s a difference between making sure a child is born and making sure that child and their mother have a decent shot at a good life.”
Another student, civil engineering major Lucia Cummings, says she wishes to “protect all women,” but claims that Prop 1 will have the opposite effect by removing medical safeguards for women and parental consent for minors.
“Current Idaho law already allows for abortions for cases of ectopic pregnancy, saving the mother’s life, rape and incest. Prop 1 does not protect women,” said Cummings. Her extended Letter to the Editor can be found in the Oct. 22 Argonaut print.
In an anonymous poll of 229 UI students, 79% (181) said they will be voting yes on Prop 1, and 21% (48) said they will be voting no.
By voting yes for Prop 1, a voter is agreeing to largely decriminalize abortion and amend the abortion law as it currently stands in Idaho. By voting no, a voter is agreeing that the abortion law should remain untouched.
More information about Prop 1 can be found at voteidaho.gov/idaho-general-election. A sample ballot for Latah County can be found at latahcountyid.gov/auditor/elections.