By Megan Wold
Bryan Clark’s recent column in the Idaho Statesman tells moderate Idahoans “how to think” about Idaho’s Proposition 1, but he neglects to give them the information that matters: what Proposition 1 does.
Moderate Idahoans can think for themselves, and they deserve to have accurate information about Proposition 1.
Proposition 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. Proposition 1 throws that definition out.
Instead, Proposition 1 says a baby is not viable until it can survive “without extraordinary medical measures” — no oxygen, no NICU care. That’s because under Proposition 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 Proposition 1 far more extreme than Roe v. Wade. Proposition 1 guarantees abortion-on-demand well into late-term pregnancy, long after an unborn baby feels pain.
Second, Proposition 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 Proposition 1 would allow.
Third, Proposition 1 replaces the requirement that a “physician” perform an abortion with only the requirement that any “health care provider” do so, which Proposition 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.
No doubt because of those extreme provisions, Clark concedes that Proposition 1 “likely entails abortion policy that is more liberal than (moderates) would like.” Yet he urges moderates to vote for Proposition 1 anyway because he says passing an extreme law now will somehow create moderate policy in the future.
Clark says that is the “smart money” position, but in reality, his position is gambling with people’s lives.
Instead, any voter who opposes abortions at eight months, or opposes removing parents or doctors from decisions related to abortion should join me in voting no on Proposition 1. It’s just too extreme for Idaho.