PROP 1: Extended considerations

Thomas Verny, MD is known for his enlightening descriptions regarding the world of the developing human child. His books "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child" and "Pre-Parenting: Nurturing Your Child From Conception" show how the developing child is amazingly responsive to outside signals. This fact is important in considering the Prop 1 initiative.

Idaho laws currently do allow abortions in the case of rape, incest, or a medical condition which threatens the life of mom. But ambiguities in the Prop 1 language could support abortion in almost any circumstance in the following ways:

1) Prop 1 allows state regulation of abortion up to fetal viability but only if the goal is to maintain or improve the health of the “pregnant patient.”

2) Defines “fetal viability” as able to survive without extraordinary medical measures. Does this mean that babies premature in the later stages could be aborted?

3) Before listing six areas related to reproductive care wherein “every person” has a right to make free unburdened decisions, Prop 1 says this right exists “notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary.” This could remove the informed and parental consent requirements for the medical treatment of under aged girls.

It is also curious that Prop 1 nowhere mentions “woman,” “female,” or “girl.” It only references “person“ or “pregnant patient.” Does this imply a claimed “right” of “reproductive care” for a “person” other than female?

Idaho Law should protect the life of both baby and mom, support prenatal and postpartum care, and also help with adoptions.

The Prop 1 language is too ambiguous and open ended to gain this writer’s vote.

WILLIAM GREEN

Coeur d’Alene