PROP 1: Too radical for Idaho

I appreciate Evan Koch’s interest in having an open and honest discussion about Proposition 1, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act. He further asserts, and I wholeheartedly agree, the conversation should be grounded in facts. Where we differ is in his statement that opponents have mischaracterized and exaggerated the issue. I submit that his omission of key facts in the article is a de facto mischaracterization.

Current Idaho Code 18-622 allows abortions to be performed by a physician if necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. Unless the physician believes the woman would otherwise die, he must perform the abortion using the method most likely to ensure the survival of the child. Abortion is also permitted in the first trimester in the cases of rape or incest that have been reported to a law enforcement agency. If the patient is a minor, the rape or incest is reported by her or her parent/guardian.

Proposition 1 states its provisions “are to be liberally construed in favor of reproductive freedom and privacy.” With that in mind, it does not include a requirement that a physician perform an abortion. A physician must determine fetal viability and medical emergencies, but the Proposition does not require abortions to be performed by a physician. Instead, it defines a health care provider as a “licensed person or entity that provides health care or medical treatment.”

Under Proposition 1, abortions may be performed at any time in a pregnancy to protect the life and health of the mother in the case of medical emergencies. “Health” is not defined. There is no requirement to use an abortion method most likely to ensure the survival of the child.

The Proposition is also silent about reporting requirements in the case of rape and incest, and is silent about abortions performed on minors. This effectively strips parents of their rights and protects the rapist or abuser.

Proposition 1 is too radical and should be soundly defeated.

RUTH RUNKLE

Coeur d’Alene