Idaho’s Proposition 1 Would Legalize Abortions Up to Birth

Proponents of Idaho’s Proposition 1—The Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act—assure skeptics that the proposal would be a simple rollback to the laws that existed under Roe v. Wade. But just as Roe and Doe did, Proposition 1 plays dangerous games with fetal viability.

As a result, despite “assurances,” the initiative is so radical it leaves Roe and Doe in the dust.

Let’s examine some of the worse features of this citizen-led ballot initiative which will appear on the November ballot having easily secured far more than the required 70,725 valid signatures.

So what exactly does Proposition 1 do?

It adds a right to “reproductive freedom and privacy” to state law. What does that mean? This “right” is defined as the ability to “make personal decisions about reproductive healthcare that directly impacts the person’s own body.”

Oh, boy.

“Prop 1 is extreme by any measure,” Megan M. Wold writes.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

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.

 Yikes. What else? It directly attacks parental involvement. According to Wold, 

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.

Proposition 1 also tracks the Abortion Industry’s dream scenario:

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.

From the tunnel-visioned pro-abortionist, they would accomplish a trifecta with Proposition 1: open-season on babies; keep those pesky parents out of their minor daughter’s abortion decision; and allow everyone but the janitor to perform abortions.

As Wold, an idaho-based partner with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, wrote

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.

As former House Member Cindy Agidius wrote in an opinion piece, “Idaho’s Prop 1 is just a smokescreen for abortion on demand.”

Proposition 1 must be defeated.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.