by Logan Finney, Idaho Reports
The House State Affairs Committee listened to just over an hour of passionate testimony from constituents and Idaho medical providers on Wednesday, and the House passed the tweaks to Idaho’s criminal abortion statutes shortly after.
The committee advanced House Bill 374 by House Majority Leader Rep. Megan Blanksma, R-Hammett, which states if the physician determined “in his good faith medical judgement” that the abortion is necessary to prevent the pregnant woman’s death, an abortion may be induced.
Right off the bat, Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, asked the House Republican leader about anencephaly – a serious birth defect in which a fetus does not develop parts of its brain and skull – and other such conditions that would result in a nonviable pregnancy.
“My concern is that woman would have to continue the pregnancy to full term,” Gannon said, “even if it had been determined the brain of the fetus did not develop.”
“I think that the physician would have to determine if that is a developing fetus or not,” Blanksma responded. “I’m not a medical professional – and have never claimed to be one,” she added.
Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, asked the physicians and health care providers who testified before the committee to compile lists for lawmakers of specific medical conditions they felt would qualify as non-viable pregnancies, as well as the related risks and diagnostic methods and accuracy.
David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses Life and one of the drafters of the current abortion ban, said he came into the session believing the “trigger law” did not need any updating – but his perspective changed over the session in negotiating with lawmakers and the Idaho Medical Association.
Lobbyist Ken McClure spoke in tepid support of the bill on behalf of the IMA.
“There is more good that we would like to see done,” McClure told the committee. However, he added, the bill’s removal of the affirmative defense provision in the existing abortion ban was of great benefit.
With an affirmative defense, a doctor can defend their decision to perform an abortion to save a woman’s life – but only after finding themselves in front of the court.
“They are not going to be second guessed after the fact,” McClure said. “In that, we find value.”
The medical providers who testified said the bill made important updates to protect a doctor’s medical judgement and draw a clearer line for criminal liability.
Dr. Megan Kasper, an OB-GYN who practices in Nampa, said she felt the legislation strengthened the original intent of the state’s abortion ban.
“That is a very real change in terms of the perspective of physicians in the emergency room providing care for miscarriage,” Kasper said, as well as ectopic and molar pregnancies.
“It sends a very important message,” Kasper added. “From the Idaho Legislature to physicians: ‘This is what we want you to do.’”
Another common refrain was that the bill didn’t go far enough to clarify what doctors can and can’t do.
“I can only muster lukewarm support,” Dr. John Werdel said on behalf of St. Luke’s Health System. “It just doesn’t go far enough to reassure physicians.”
A previous version of the bill, HB 342, included an exemption for doctors “to treat a physical condition of the woman that if left untreated would be life-threatening,” but that was removed from HB 374.
Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, asked testifiers repeatedly about the differences between the two bills and protecting the health of the woman, not just her life.
“Is care going to have to be administered at such a late date that the complications, and fertility [impacts] and so forth, would not be prevented?” Green asked.
“Unfortunately, this bill really is just a death exception only,” Werdel responded.
The bill includes a criminal provision, stating any physician who provides an abortion outside of these lines could be punished by two to five years in prison.
The bill includes that abortions shall not be deemed necessary to prevent the death of a woman because the physician believes that the mother may or will harm herself. That provision existed in law before the overturn of Roe v. Wade allowed the state to ban abortion outright.
Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, moved to advance the bill, pointing out that all of the negative testimony essentially boiled down to lukewarm support for the bill with a desire to do more.
“If there is more, I think that is for a different bill, and a different day,” Palmer said.
Gannon countered with a motion to open the bill on the floor for amendments, saying he wanted to reinsert the stricken language from the previous version. The committee rejected that move on party lines and advanced the bill to the floor.
“Now is where the work begins,” said committee chairman Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, calling the bill a first step of many toward clarifying and codifying Idaho’s post-Roe landscape.
The House passed the bill that afternoon around 4 p.m. with only Rep. Sue Chew, D-Boise, voting against. The Idaho Capital Sun reports the rest of the Democratic caucus walked off the floor.
The Senate postponed its vote on Gov. Brad Little’s veto of HB 292 until 4:15 p.m. and took up a House bill that is intended to amend it and correct some of the governor’s sales tax distribution concerns.
Logan Finney | Associate Producer
Logan Finney is a North Idaho native with a passion for media production and boring government meetings. He grew up skiing, hunting and hiking in the mountains of Bonner County and has maintained a lifelong interest in the state’s geography, history and politics. Logan joined the Idaho Reports team in 2020 as a legislative session intern and stayed to cover the COVID-19 pandemic. He was hired as an associate producer in 2021 and they haven’t been able to get rid of him since.
