OPINION: Proposition 1 is too extreme for Idaho

Those campaigning for Proposition 1 want you to believe that it is a simple rollback to the laws that existed under Roe v Wade. But Prop 1 goes much, much further, creating California-style abortion policies that most Idahoans, whether they consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice, oppose.

Prop 1 is extreme by any measure. First, it allows abortion up to fetal viability, which it redefines, allowing abortion for any reason (or no reason) into the eighth month of pregnancy.

Fetal viability is medically understood to mean the point at which a baby can survive outside the womb, albeit with medical assistance. Prop 1 throws that definition out.

Instead, Prop 1 says a baby is not viable until it can survive “without extraordinary medical measures” — no oxygen, no NICU care. That’s because under Prop 1’s definition of viability, survival must occur without medical help — not with it. For most babies, that time doesn’t come until only four weeks before delivery.

That makes Prop 1 far more extreme than Roe v. Wade. Prop 1 guarantees abortion-on-demand well into late-term pregnancy, long after an unborn baby feels pain.

Second, Prop 1 grants the right to abortion to “every person,” regardless of age. That would eliminate Idaho’s parental consent laws. A provider could perform an abortion on a teenage girl without her parents ever knowing.

This is especially dangerous because it leaves abused girls vulnerable to coerced abortion, where an abuser hides his crime by disposing of the evidence — her underage pregnancy. And it leaves parents in the dark if their underage daughter experiences medical complications after receiving an abortion without their knowledge, which Prop 1 would allow.

Third, Prop 1 replaces the requirement that a “physician” perform an abortion with only the requirement that any “health care provider” do so, which Prop 1 then defines so broadly that it includes non-doctors. That would actually strip women of a crucial medical protection and would increase their risk of medical complications.

Recognizing how out-of-step these policies are with most Idahoans, some supporters are now suggesting that voters should approve Prop 1 and assume that someone might come along later and moderate the extreme policies it would enact. To voters who might be tempted by this logic, Prop 1 was written by those campaigning for it. They didn’t have to write it this way, but they did. And they did it because that’s what they want.

So if you oppose abortions at eight months or oppose removing parents or doctors from decisions related to abortion, you should join me in voting NO on Prop 1. It’s just too extreme for Idaho.

• • •

Megan M. Wold is an Idaho-based partner with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC and practices law in Idaho and the District of Columbia. She specializes in constitutional litigation, administrative law, and complex commercial disputes, and she regularly argues before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts. She previously clerked for US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.