BOISE, Idaho — This story originally ran in The Idaho Press
The House on Wednesday voted 59-1, with 10 Democrats walking out, to approve a late-session abortion bill that defines what is and isn’t an abortion under the law and provides exceptions rather than affirmative defenses. It also requires that someone seeking an exception for rape and incest be able to access their police report of the incident within 72 hours.
House State Affairs passed the bill, HB 374, a few hours before the floor vote.
House Majority Leader Megan Blanksma, R-Hammett, sponsored the bill.
Those in favor of the bill said it’s “a step in the right direction” in addressing concerns the medical community has about Idaho’s abortion ban.
The Democrats who testified against it said it was a chance to make other changes to address fears doctors have about facing criminal penalties for treating pregnant patients.
Testimony and debate became at times emotional as people described the risks and dangers that could be present for women who experience these complications.
House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said of the bill, “I don’t want to be part of a charade that fixes nothing.”
The legislation amends the state’s trigger law, which went into effect after the overturning of Roe v. Wade and made performing most abortions a felony punishable by two to five years in prison.
It states that the definition of abortion in the code does not include removing a dead fetus, removing an ectopic or molar pregnancy or treating a woman who is no longer pregnant.
Medical providers spoke in favor of the bill during the hearing, although several said they wished it went further to protect doctors who provide care for a variety of complications that can happen during pregnancy. Many said that doctors who treat pregnant patients are leaving the state or choosing not to practice in Idaho because of the steep penalties associated with the state’s abortion laws.
The law currently allows an affirmative defense for performing abortion in cases of rape, incest or to prevent the death of the mother, which means the provider could still be prosecuted and would need to prove these circumstances by a “preponderance of evidence.” The bill would define these exceptions as not criminal abortions instead.
John Werdel, medical director of women’s services at St. Luke’s, said he spoke in “lukewarm support.” He said the criminal penalties and the way the law is written now has severely impacted his staff and ability to hire OB-GYNs.
In an earlier version of the bill that was introduced but did not have a hearing, there was a language change to allow an exception for a physician if in “reasonable medical judgment” to “treat a physical condition of the woman if left untreated would be life-threatening,” Idaho Reports reported.
This language isn’t included in HB 374, which retains the current law’s language; it would not be considered a criminal abortion if the physician “in good faith medical judgment” determined it was “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” This would not apply if it was determined the woman may harm herself.
Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, asked testifiers pointed questions about the law as written, and if doctors could perform abortions to protect against serious but non-life-threatening health issues or to preserve the future fertility of the mother.
Emily Corrigan, an OB-GYN in Boise, said she treated patients who were experiencing complications and had been turned away by other hospitals who feared treating her. She said the language is “slightly better,” but harm could be done if doctors feel they have to wait for imminent death before being able to perform an abortion.
“The language to prevent death is not good enough,” Corrigan said.
Green later spoke emotionally, at times choking up, about her complications with preeclampsia during her pregnancy. She said she was lucky enough that she was able to carry her child, but that those difficult decisions shouldn’t be subject to legislation.
“We do not belong in that room between the mom and the doctor, that is not our place,” she said on the House floor.
David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses Life, who said he was one of the drafters on the original trigger law, said the language fits within its intent.
Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, said the reason language to protect the health of the mother wasn’t included is that it was too broad and she feared it would be used to justify most abortions.
Young said the reason abortion laws exist are because, “unfortunately, there are a lot of people this world who do not value the life of a baby in the same way that many of us do.”
Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, said there’s a difference in legislating as a “pro-life” lawmaker in a post-Roe v. Wade atmosphere. He said the work that went into the legislation was a good step.
“There’s more work to do,” he said, “and we know that.”
Watch more Local News:
See the latest news from around the Treasure Valley and the Gem State in our YouTube playlist: