My personal argument for a ‘no’ vote on Prop One
Every so often our family travels to Southern California to visit extended family. Most of the time we drive our people (and cargo) hauler Suburban the 13-14 hours from Boise to Los Angeles. On one occasion, we happened to hit the 405 freeway during rush hour. Anyone who’s ever spent any length of time in L.A. is thinking “when is it NOT rush hour on the 405?” IYKYK
While traffic sat at a standstill on both sides of the freeway and my kids were watching a movie in the back, I took a minute from my mild impatience at Southern California traffic to look around. The sheer number of cars was staggering. I then looked at the people in the cars. It filled me with an overwhelming sense of awe at the thousands of strangers who were engaged in this shared experience of LA traffic.
I thought to myself of the stories each person might tell. I wondered how much more I might understand of the world if I could know each of them personally. It reminded me that each life is precious and unique. Also, that we come to earth to have an experience and that those experiences shape who we ultimately become and how we think.
I can’t explain why that singular experience on the 405 caused so much reflection that day. Heaven knows, I’ve been stuck in traffic more than once in my life and the feelings that often accompany it cannot be considered thought-provoking. Still, I hark back to that moment as a reminder to think kindly of others because each has a story that plays into how they think and act. That story matters.
I have a story too. I don’t intend to relay my entire life story today. But, in reflecting on my views regarding an upcoming ballot initiative regarding abortion in Idaho, I hope to share some of the experiences that shape my worldview. I acknowledge understanding and compassion for those whose views differ.
I am a deeply religious person.
My family raised me in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Sometime as a young adult, I decided that I truly believed its teachings and wanted to continue on that path. Because of my faith, I believe that all individuals are created in the image of God, are His spirit children, and that human life is precious. I also believe that God calls prophets throughout the ages (think Abraham, Moses, etc.) who are called to teach His word. Prophets teachings are recorded as scripture. According to my faith tradition, God still speaks to mankind through living prophets and apostles. Though these fail to even scratch the surface of what my faith teaches; they reflect the tenets I feel remain most relevant to the topic of abortion.
So let me include just a few tidbits of what scriptures have to say that relates to abortion:
“Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13)
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee” (Jeremiah 1:5)
“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” (Luke 1: 41-42)
“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” (Psalms 127: 3)
Additionally, modern revelation (revealed through modern prophets and apostles) says the following:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
- Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
- A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
- A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process.
The Church’s position on this matter remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.” (Official statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Here’s a link to various quotes from church leaders regarding abortion.
And this is perhaps the most recent address given on the subject in a churchwide conference in 2025.
In a nutshell, I believe abortion is a moral stain on our society, and though there are exceptions, those exceptions do not ALWAYS justify abortion. I personally know women who have foregone abortion even in those cases. Their stories inspire me.
Justifying the taking of innocent life by labeling it “choice” or “healthcare” exemplifies one of the most effective lies perpetuated in the history of the world. We can use our agency to do better and create laws to reflect that aim.
Some may discount my opinion because it is so deeply tied to my faith. Just because my moral foundations find their roots in religious belief does not make them any more or less credible than another’s beliefs. I’ve made it to middle-age and feel quite satisfied with the results of my adherence to my religion. My experience is not an isolated incident. I respect the right of others to believe differently and try not discount the opinions they form based on their experiences.
I try to do my homework before taking a stand.
During my college studies, I took a political research course that altered the way I process information forever. Consequently, when presented with “facts” I attempt to recognize the logical fallacies in any argument (including the side that resonates with me). The class also inspired me to research actual data when confronted with a controversial topic. I’ve done so with regard to Prop One – the ballot initiative expanding abortion access in the state of Idaho.
First, I deleted my Facebook app temporarily – the sensationalism surrounding this issue has been at a fever pitch. I then read current Idaho State law regarding abortion including the Defense of Life Act (It wasn’t my first time reading it – merely a refresher). After that, I read the text of Prop One.
Reading the actual text of these documents helped me to dispel some of the talking points of each side and evaluate them on their merits alone and how they align (or don’t) with my personal beliefs.
According to my reading, in its simplest terms, Idaho law currently allows abortion when the mother’s life is at risk, when a pregnancy results from rape or incest (and a report filed), or when the fetus will not be able to survive outside of the womb. Physicians who perform abortions outside these parameters may be subject to criminal investigation punishable by imprisonment for 2-5 years and the loss of their license for 6 months on the first offense and permanently revoked upon a subsequent offense. Women subjected to abortion procedures will not be criminalized. Birth control, miscarriages and treatment of ectopic or molar pregnancies are not considered abortion, according to state law.
Prop One, or the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, at a basic level, removes the right of the state of Idaho to prohibit abortion before the age of viability. It also limits government intervention in abortions after viability in the case of medical emergency. Medical emergency is defined as “a physical medical condition that, on the basis of a physician’s good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known at the time, and determined on a case-by-case basis, complicates the physical medical condition of a pregnant patient as to warrant an abortion:
- i. To protect a pregnant patient’s life; or
- ii. For which a delay may:
- a. Place the health of a pregnant patient in serious jeopardy;
- b. Cause serious impairment to a bodily function of a pregnant patient; or
- c. Cause serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part of a pregnant patient’s body.”
Prop One seeks to maintain reproductive decisions (including abortion) as private and protected up to the point of fetal viability. Fetal viability is defined in the act as “the point in a pregnancy when, on the basis of a physician’s good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known at the time, and determined on a case-by-case basis, the fetus has a significant likelihood of sustained survival outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical measures”.
I sympathize with those with reservations regarding criminalizing doctors for performing abortions, though I think the current law grants exceptions I can uphold. Those suggesting that doctors cannot treat their patients effectively, opting to fly their patients out of state to receive “medically necessary” care, need to read the law more closely. Why? Because the law protects the life of the mother when medically necessary. Doctors can, in good conscience and according to the law, treat ectopic and molar pregnancies, remove a dead embryo or fetus (miscarriage care) and perform abortions when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or will result in a baby that cannot survive outside of the womb. In fact, according to the definition of medical emergency in Idaho Statute 18-502(4), it actually allows termination of pregnancy for bodily impairment as well, a fact completely ignored by those advocating for Prop One.
In my opinion, doctors who delay medical care (or who have moved out of the state as a reaction to the Defense of Life Act) either do not understand the law, care more about themselves than their patients, or have a political agenda supporting abortion that supersedes their desire to give their patients optimal care. I realize that sounds harsh, but the Idaho Supreme Court gave guidance on this topic when it stated:
“The plain language of [“the life of the mother”] provision leaves wide room for the physician’s “good faith medical judgment” on whether the abortion was “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” based on those facts known to the physician at that time. This is clearly a subjective standard, focusing on the particular physician’s judgment. [T]he statute does not require objective certainty, or a particular level of immediacy, before the abortion can be “necessary” to save the woman’s life. Instead, the statute uses broad language to allow for the “clinical judgment that physicians are routinely called upon to make for proper treatment of their patients.” See Spears v. State, 278 So.2d 443, 445 (Miss. 1973) (“This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.”)
If a doctor’s primary objective is to provide adequate care for her/his pregnant patient, the law protects them. It should be noted that not a single physician in Idaho has been prosecuted since 2022 for providing an abortion. In addition, a federal judge ruled that the state cannot sue a provider for performing an abortion to protect the “health” of the mother – though the permanency of that ruling is still undetermined.
The Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act (Prop One) makes it so health care providers are not criminally-liable for performing abortions under very loosely-defined conditions. It protects doctors over patients and most certainly more than the innocent lives of the unborn. In my mind, it opens the floodgates for elective abortion under the guise of “protecting women”.
I love data because it speaks for itself.
As part of my research, I looked up all sorts of statistics to get a clearer picture of the abortion landscape. In my research I discovered:
1 in 5 pregnancies results in termination. From the same study: women in their 20s account for over half (56%) of all abortions.
Almost 96% of all abortions are for elective or unspecified reasons. Of the rest, 0.4% result from rape or incest, 0.3% are performed because the mother’s health is at risk, 2.2% for other health reasons, and 1.2% due to a fetal abnormality.
Abortion of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome is between 67-90% in the United States.
Unmarried women account for 88% of those receiving abortions.
A disproportionate amount of individuals that choose abortion live in poverty. (36.6 per 1000 versus 14.6 per 1000 for all women of reproductive age). A majority of patients who terminate pregnancy do so at their own expense.
Conversely, pregnancy is covered at much higher rates, either through private insurance, Medicaid, or by adoptive parents for those who choose that route.
Rates of death due to ectopic pregnancy in states that strictly regulate abortion are double that of states with looser restrictions. From the same link, the rate actually doubled before the 2022 Dobbs decision. Side note: as mentioned before, why are we questioning the validity of a law that allows treatment of ectopic pregnancy and not the doctors who misconstrue the law to justify NOT treating an ectopic pregnancy?
(The study acknowledges the data is incomplete and does not indicate causation and possibly intervening variables contributing to the results).
There were over 1,037,000 abortions during the same period, an 11% increase since 2020.
Idaho has lost over 35% of its practicing obstetricians since the 2022 Dobbs decision.
I tried to include data that some people use as justification for a ‘yes’ vote on Prop One. I did so primarily to demonstrate that I try to avoid living in an echo chamber by only reading studies that support my personal opinions. Confirmation bias is real and we’re all guilty of it from time to time. From a sheer numbers perspective, Prop One passage will result in far more lives lost than current Idaho law.
I believe that laws both reflect the morals of a society and steer members of that society to act in moral ways.
One of the arguments for Prop One I’ve seen consistently is that government should stay out of what a woman does with her body. I choose not to address the argument that abortion involves another “body” (though I believe it does). I will mention, though, that many laws govern what people do with their bodies. A few examples include: FDA and CDC regulations, seatbelt laws, drug laws, public decency codes, etc.
One of the purposes of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence is to “secure unalienable rights – specifically Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I recognize that a government’s validity comes from the “consent of the governed”.
Our Constitution outlines the overarching reasons for law in its preamble. That is: “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty”. Law protects our liberty allows us to live in a civil society in which everyone’s rights are respected. In the 2022 Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court returned the power to regulate abortion to the states. The court concluded that abortion is not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions”.
In my opinion, the argument that government shouldn’t regulate what a woman does with her body finds little justification in our understanding of the purpose of government and law. The Idaho legislative branch passed laws to regulate abortion that it believes reflect the morals of the people of Idaho. Proponents of Prop One disagree and are exercising their right to put an alternative on the ballot. The people of Idaho will use their vote to decide whether the new initiative reflects our morals and will contribute to desirable outcomes.
Since Roe v. Wade, the U.S. has lost millions of unborn children to abortion. I believe elective abortion has also contributed to a depletion of our regard for marriage and family and a problematic culture surrounding sex that relies solely on consent. Saving sex for marital relationships is virtually nonexistent (despite research to support its positive impact on marital stability). The drop in family size since Roe V. Wade is also staggering, creating additional impacts to society.
Legalized abortion demonstrate vast impacts in the United States. I fail to find substantial evidence that abortion contributes to a better society. Governments construct laws to preserve our rights AND to promote a just society. I recognize the humanity in all of us and honor the agency in each of us to vote for what we deem best. Still, I hope that, like me, a majority of Idahoans believe in the sanctity of life and support laws that protect the unborn. There are moral, legal and pragmatic reasons for doing so.
