Another day, another set of lies from our local news media—and it’s time we correct the record.
At the Boise March for Life last Saturday, I received the “Pro-Life Warrior” award from our friends at Right to Life of Idaho.
It was an honor to receive that award—not only to celebrate the progress we’ve achieved for babies and families in recent years, but also to prepare ourselves for the fight over the proposed abortion ballot initiative.
Unfortunately, some local journalists – such as Haadiya Tariq of the Idaho Press – seem intent on lying about the ballot initiative, presumably with the goal of misleading voters.
Her article about the march was featured on the front page of the Idaho Press in the Sunday morning edition.
The problem? In her article, Tariq purportedly ‘fact-checked’ portions of my speech where I explained how the ballot initiative is too extreme for Idaho—but her reporting was full of inaccuracies and spin. Let’s dive into it:
1. The pro-abortion ballot initiative would legalize late-term abortions
The Idaho Press said my claim that the ballot initiative would legalize late-term abortions “elicited gasps from the crowd.”
But the Press rejected it as false, noting that the ballot initiative would legalize abortion only until viability, and current Idaho law defines viability at 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Here’s the thing: The ballot initiative would redefine viability as the point in a pregnancy when the “fetus has a significant likelihood of sustained survival outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical measures” – a novel redefinition without any basis in law or medicine.
Medical professionals generally agree that otherwise healthy preborn babies typically need to be at least 34–36 weeks old to survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention, such as mechanical ventilation.
By that standard, the ballot initiative would legalize abortion until roughly eight months of pregnancy for otherwise healthy babies—and up until birth for children with certain genetic conditions or birth defects. The Idaho Press is wrong.
2. The pro-abortion ballot initiative would gut patient protections like the physician-only requirement
The Idaho Press said my “most jarring” claim was that the ballot initiative “would allow abortions to be provided by unqualified practitioners including chiropractors, dentists and nurses.”
They dismissed my claim as false, pointing to the physician-only requirement for performing abortions that has been in Idaho law for over two decades.
But here’s the thing: The ballot initiative would provide blanket immunity to all “health care providers” – not just physicians – who perform abortions. “Health care provider” is defined as “a licensed person or entity that provides health care or medical treatment.”
This means that no health care provider could face criminal prosecution, civil liability, or professional discipline for performing an abortion consistent with the provisions of the ballot initiative, regardless of the health care provider’s specialty or scope of practice.
Furthermore, the “notwithstanding” clause used in the ballot initiative text means that other currently existing laws (such as the physician-only requirement) would be superseded by the ballot initiative and rendered unenforceable.
According to a 2022 memo from the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research, nearly twenty states allow non-physician health care professionals to perform abortions. But even the least restrictive of these states – Washington and Rhode Island – allow health care professionals to perform abortions only if it is within the scope of their practice (such as physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, midwives, etc.).
The proposed ballot initiative here in Idaho contains no such requirement—meaning that any health care provider would be permitted to perform an abortion consistent with the provisions of the ballot initiative. The Idaho Press is wrong again.
3. The pro-abortion ballot initiative would outlaw parental notification requirements
The Idaho Press also disputed my statement that the ballot initiative would allow abortions for minors “without parental consent,” noting that current Idaho law requires parental consent for medical care except in cases of medical emergency.
But here’s the thing: These parental consent laws would be rendered unenforceable by the ballot initiative’s “notwithstanding” clause, which supersedes “any provision of law to the contrary.”
The ballot initiative would strip away parental consent requirements, adding Idaho to the ranks of the more than twenty states that lack such protections for minor children getting abortions. The Idaho Press is wrong once more.
We’ve asked Haadiya Tariq and her editors at the Idaho Press to correct the record. Unfortunately, they’ve refused, making it necessary for us to correct the record for them.
You see, Idaho voters deserve the truth—especially since they will decide whether to approve the initiative if it qualifies for the ballot this November.
What does this all prove? The battle for life is as intense as ever—and local news outlets are willing to do whatever it takes to obfuscate the truth.
Let’s not allow them to get away with it.
