Who Gets Abortions?

We know from the data that there are many reasons a pregnant person may get an abortion. Their life or health may be in danger or they may have socioeconomic pressures that make having a child impossible. According to PBS News Hour, “Three-quarters of women who seek abortions were low-income, meaning they had a family income below or up to double the federal poverty level, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute, a science-based research group that supports abortion rights.” Pregnancy and raising a child is expensive and time-consuming. Childcare is sorely lacking in our state and the Idaho Department of Labor reports that “Some workers dropped out of the Idaho labor force during the last year because of child or elder care issues.” How can we expect people to raise their children and work when we don’t give them the support they need?

As you can see from the graph below, many age groups get abortions in Idaho and this may be due to a myriad of reasons.

The Economic Toll of Abortion Bans

Not only are people leaving Idaho and depleting our workforce, including essential healthcare workers, but there are far-reaching economic consequences. As CNN reports, “there was an 11% increase in children placed in foster care in states with certain abortion restrictions called TRAP [Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers] laws, following the enactment of those TRAP laws, relative to states without such abortion restrictions.” 11% is a lot of increase for a system that is already overburdened. This puts stress on the entire economy, eventually affecting even those who have no connection to those getting abortions. The children in foster care are also placed at a particular disadvantage for their future as “they’re obviously affected negatively in terms of their education, their health, and their mental health.” Abortion bans have the potential to devastate our economy and labor force is far-reaching and long-lasting ways.

Why You Should Vote For Me

The harsh bans are not what Idahoans want. In addition to the newer survey cited in today’s Idaho Capital Sun article, a previous survey showed that “33% of Idahoans said they favored keeping Idaho’s abortion law as is, while 58% of Idahoans favor changing the existing law” and “Of the Idahoans who favored changes, 24% percent wanted to expand exceptions to include the health of the mother and non-viable pregnancies, 19% favored no restrictions to abortion access, and 14% favored allowing abortion until 22 or 24 weeks, which is often considered the time range when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, but banning it after that time frame.” Most Idahoans want reasonable laws about abortion and believe that the current bans are too extreme.

I promise I will be fighting with everything I have to get meaningful health exceptions into our draconian Idaho abortion laws. I will fight for full protection of and restoration of reproductive freedoms. I will fight to eliminate the civil lawsuit provisions which are nothing but tools for abusers. My opponent for seat 29A, Dustin Manwaring, co-sponsored the 6-week ban/civil lawsuits provisions as soon as he was re-elected. DO NOT let him tell you he is a moderate on the issue. He has not voted that way. Dustin may well be one of the well-meaning IDGOP who agree with me that we need to at least relax the language of our abortion bans significantly. Yet even though he now holds a leadership position in the IDGOP, he has taken no action to revise these laws to help Idaho families and doctors. Dustin is chained to his parties’ extremists. You need to elect someone who will never be so constrained, so we can fix the myriad of serious problems and negative consequences I predicted when Dobbs was decided on June 24, 2022. If this is an issue you care about, I am without question your very best choice for D29, Seat A.

Public education is the foundation of our democracy, our economy, and our society. It provides equal opportunities for all children to learn, grow, and succeed. Our business leaders in Idaho know that we need a skilled and educated workforce to keep our economy thriving. 

Idaho has been failing our kids for a long time.  We have inadequately funded our facilities to a dangerous degree, and some politicians and extremists in Idaho have made it difficult to correct the problem.  Now some of these same politicians and extremists are trying to strike a fatal blow to our public education system by siphoning public education funds to private and religious schools.  They claim to be advocating for “school choice,” but that is not their true agenda.  Their true agenda, as evidenced by their rhetoric on social media and the sources of their political funding, is to gut our public education system entirely. The head of the IFF holds public education in high disdain. In 2019, he wrote this in an opinion piece: “I don’t think government should be in the education business. It is the most virulent form of socialism (and indoctrination thereto) in America today.”

This is the latest in the extremists’ series of attacks on public education.  They have withheld funding based on false accusations of teaching “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” in public schools. In 2021, the GOP supermajority withheld $2.5 million from the higher education budget, specifically targeting the University of Idaho, Idaho State University, and Boise State, over accusations that they teach “critical race theory” or support “social justice” ideology.  

In a similar vein, in 2021, the Idaho legislature refused to accept a $6 million federal grant to launch a public preschool pilot program, with GOP extremist legislators citing false claims that CRT was being taught in Boise area preschools. They claimed that preschool was some kind of plot to “indoctrinate” children with “woke” ideology.   As a mother who has raised three kids, and as a lawyer who regularly represents parents and children, I can assure you that if children were so easily “indoctrinated,” they would all eat their vegetables, and they would go to school, and do their homework and chores without complaining!  

Idaho GOP legislators have even been spreading false rumors that children in our public schools are using kitty litter instead of restrooms because they “identify” as cats.  For the record, this is a false rumor that has circulated for two years in communities all over the country, including in Smithfield, Idaho.  

I have been told by Pocatello LGBTQ constituents that District 29’s own Dustin Manwaring repeated that false rumor about kitty litter to them while discussing the legislative attacks on the LGBTQ community during the 2023 legislative session.  

It is absolutely shameful that these extremists ran our Idaho 2023 educator of the year out of Idaho with harassment about her private life statements about her tolerance and acceptance of LGBTQ youth, and her support for the Black Lives Matter movement.  

Good public policy does not begin with false accusations and manufactured outrage about nonissues.  Idaho legislators need to get back to the real work of the people, for the good of our kids and our communities.  

Deferred Maintenance Crisis in Idaho

Idaho has neglected our public school deferred maintenance problem for decades.  We are ranked as the worst state in the nation in terms of facility maintenance funding for our public schools (See Pro Publica articles below).  By 2022, it was estimated that our deferred maintenance costs are at least $874 million dollars.    

The national media has been paying attention to these failures, highlighting Salmon Idaho and Bonner County as examples. Our Idaho legislature has known since the 1990s that we had crumbling schools, and our legislature was told by our Idaho Supreme Court in 2005 that it was their constitutional obligation to fix it. Instead, the Idaho legislature enacted a complicated funding program intended to help the most dangerous schools access state funds. Ten years ago, one Idaho school district made an application, and they received only a fraction of what they requested. No district has even tried since.   

In April 2023, Pocatello’s beloved Highland High School also received media attention for the same concerns.  The fire that destroyed the school was caused by deferred maintenance issues our District could not afford to address. Just like in Bonner County and Salmon, Idaho, and all over the state of Idaho over the last decade, our school district’s attempt to fund repairs at Highland (and Century High School) through a bond did not get the 66% vote required to pass in the November 2023 election.  I supported this bond, although I strongly believe that it is high time for Idaho voters to hold the Idaho legislature accountable for failing to meet their constitutional duty to address our public school facility needs.  

Extremists in Idaho tried but Failed to Stop Public Education Funding in 2022/2023

With the full support of the Democratic Caucus, including our own District 29 Senator James Ruchti and Representative Nate Roberts, in 2022 and 2023, Idaho finally passed legislation to support our public schools and students.  As Senator Ruchti has explained, Idaho never caught up from the budget crisis of 2008-2013 in terms of public education funding until 2022-2023.  It was not until this year that we were able to restore funding to the same inflation-adjusted dollar-per-student funding we had in 2002.  That is more than two decades of underfunding.  As you would predict, our extremists in Idaho did not support the restoration of public school funding.  

In 2023, our Democratic Caucus also supported the Governor’s innovative Launch program, intended to encourage our kids to stay in Idaho and pursue higher education and workforce training necessary to sustain a strong economy.  Again, as you would expect, our extremists in Idaho opposed this program. If you think the Idaho Democrats do not matter much in policy outcomes in the GOP supermajority legislature, this bill proves how much we matter. The Launch program passed by only one vote in the House. Margins matter.

Without the Idaho Democrats supporting this bill, it would have failed.  Idaho Democrats are pragmatic.  We know that good ideas come from both parties and from Independents.  Good legislation should be focused on the outcome and the benefits to our State, and not on extremist ideology.   I need your help to flip another seat in the Idaho House of Representatives because we need more reasonable people who are both willing and able to vote for good bills and stand up to the extremists.  

“Education Spending Account” or “Voucher” Programs Are a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

The same groups that have ignored the most basic funding needs of our public schools and that have made it difficult to impossible to pass local bonds to support local schools are now pushing for a voucher or ESA program that would allow parents to use taxpayer money to pay for their children’s education in non-public schools. 

I strongly oppose these efforts.  I believe passing such a program would be the beginning of the end of a quality public education system in Idaho.  It would undermine the quality and accountability of public education; it would create a two-tiered education system that favors the wealthy and privileged; it would decimate our rural schools; it would harm our most challenged learners including disabled learners; and it would very likely violate our Idaho Constitution and the principle of separation of church and state.

In states that have passed voucher programs, tax dollars are paying for church construction. On the first day of the 2023 legislative session, a former Superintendent of a rural school district in Indiana came to talk to the Idaho legislature. Indiana approved a school voucher program in 2011. He told the legislature that a well-used model for building church buildings, generally, in Indiana is to start with a school. And then as the money flows in, build the rest of the church building. Father Jake of St. Jude parish in Fort Wayne, Indiana, indicates that thanks to the impending influx of tax dollars, the church will soon be getting a repaired air conditioning system, redecorating the church, new paint, and repairs to the church steeple. 

A voucher or ESA program would also hurt our public schools financially. According to a recent study by the Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy, a voucher or ESA program could cost the state up to $400 million per year in lost revenue. This would mean less funding for teachers, classrooms, textbooks, technology, and other essential resources. It would also mean less funding for special education, transportation, and other services that many students rely on. Moreover, Indiana’s ESA program and lower per-student funding has led to higher property taxes. With less state support public schools have had to go to voters to make up the difference.  This has hit farmers, Main Street businesses, and homeowners hard.

ESAs have a negative association with student achievement. A 2017 Notre Dame Study found that Indiana students who switched to private schools using vouchers experienced statistically significant annual losses in math achievement. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute said, “recent evaluations of expanded voucher programs in Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., indicate significant negative impacts on participants’ test scores.” A 2021 study commissioned by the pro-voucher Manhattan Institute called “Accountability and Private-School Choice says “Unfortunately, parental choice alone has proved ineffective in weeding poorly performing schools out of private-school choice programs. And in some cases, hoped-for academic gains have failed to materialize among program participants.”

It is Idaho’s rural schools that would suffer the most; these are districts that already cannot afford to offer much in the way of “school choice” outside of online or homeschool education.  These are the school districts where schools are literally falling down around them already.  In terms of students, it is our challenged learners who will suffer the most.  Private and religious schools would not be obligated to serve those students.  Public schools would have to meet all of those needs, with reduced resources to do it.  

WHY SHOULD YOU VOTE FOR ME?

While I give Rep. Dustin Manwaring credit for supporting the 2022 and 2023 public education funding bills, I remain very concerned that he sometimes endorses extremist rhetoric.  He voted for the legislation that banned teaching critical race theory in Idaho, despite there being no evidence that “CRT” is being taught anywhere in Idaho K-12 schools.   

Dustin voted for the LGBTQ hate bills sponsored by the Idaho extremists. (2022 ban on gender-affirming care, bathroom bill). As I have already noted, he seems to believe the provably false “kitty litter” rumors.    

I am very concerned about Dustin’s “flip flop” on the bill that would have imposed a minimum of $2500 in damages on any public or school librarian who disseminated “harmful materials” (ill-defined) to minors.  On the original vote, Dustin voted against it.  When it came back to the House following the veto by Governor Little, he changed his vote under pressure from the extremists.  This terrible bill that would have encouraged frivolous litigation against our school librarians was defeated by only one vote, once again proving the power of Idaho Democrats in the legislature.  This flip-flop should concern all District 29 constituents, Republican, Democrat, and Independent or unaffiliated. Dustin caved to pressure from extremists in his party on a very bad bill.  That is a pressure I will never have.

District 29 constituents should also be concerned that Dustin received independent expenditures in the 2022 campaign cycle from special interest groups connected to Betsy DeVos’ pro voucher PAC.  These funds were used to run false negative ads against me in 2022.  Dustin has made comments that indicate he may be supportive of an ESA or voucher program. If you share my concerns about all of this, please help me beat him in 2024.  

Public education is a public good that benefits everyone, not a private commodity that can be bought and sold. That’s why I oppose any voucher or ESA program that would drain public funds from our public schools. If elected, I will fight to protect and strengthen public education in Idaho. I will work to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality, well-funded, and accountable public school. I will also work to support our teachers, who are the backbone of our public education system.

Public education is not a partisan issue. It is an Idaho issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that affects all of us, regardless of our background, beliefs, or preferences. That’s why I urge you to join me in standing up for fully funding our public education system and working against any voucher or ESA program. Together, we can make sure that our public schools remain the pride of our state and the hope of our future.

Last month was Suicide Awareness Month. I want to share a personal story. On my 10th birthday, my godfather (who was also my uncle) took his own life. This was my first brush with suicide, and it was not my last. I, like many of you, have lost friends and family. 

Members of my family have struggled with addiction. I have lost friends, and I know friends who have lost children.  Many of you reading this have similar experiences.   No one is immune from having a mental health crisis or substance use disorder.

For decades, Idaho has had one of the highest suicide rates across all categories. The good news is that the suicide rate fell in 2021 for the first time in many years, after a peak in 2018. In 2021, for the first time in many decades, we were not in the top 10 states for suicides per capita.  While this is cause for cautious optimism, we do not have 2022 or 2023 numbers yet to know if this trend is holding.   I am personally aware of multiple youth and young adult suicides locally over the past two years, and I have reason to be concerned that this trend is not holding.  

After 2018, the governor and legislature took some steps to address the growing crisis and citizen demand for action. The Idaho Behavioral Health Council (IBHC) was established in 2020 through a partnership between the three branches of Idaho state government. The Governor recommended, and the Idaho Legislature appropriated, $4.4M of funding to provide additional resources for the implementation of the 988 National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. I support these positive efforts and I believe that 988 is going to make a difference. However, we still have a lot of problems to solve. 

Right now, I want to express concern for our most vulnerable populations: children who experience extreme trauma, members of the LGBTQ community, and postpartum women.  Addressing the mental health crisis in Idaho will be a legislative priority for me if I am elected to serve in Idaho State House District 29A.

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH 

We are now really learning the role that generational trauma, home environment, and other adolescent environmental factors play a role in mental health and substance use.  Unfortunately, there is a significant shortage of school psychologists in Idaho. The National Association of School Psychologists recommends a ratio of one school psychologist for every 500 students. Currently in Idaho, the ratio is about 1,700 students per one school psychologist.

My experience as a Child Welfare Law Specialist allows me to witness this problem up close in Bannock County. We simply do not have enough providers to accommodate our mental health care needs. The National Council for Behavioral Health reports 77% of counties in the U.S. have severe shortages of behavioral health professionals.  Rural counties are hit hardest, and Idaho is currently suffering.  A Harvard University study recently found just 17% of phone calls placed to get an appointment with a mental health counselor were successful. Patrick O’Neal, a therapist and owner of a counseling service in Idaho Falls, Idaho, said many mental health providers in his area are booked months in advance. “We’re not able to treat the clients that need treatment,” O’Neal said. “At the same time, they’re getting worse while they’re waiting for that treatment to arrive.”  This is consistent with my experience in Idaho.  Even when we have secured funding and after we have dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s, it takes us months to actually connect many of my juvenile court clients with a provider even under emergent circumstances.  The best we can do is stabilize them, monitor them, and hope for the best.  

Idaho needs to do more to attract and retain mental health professionals.  We need those school nurses and school counselors in every middle school and high school, as they provide important on scene support and triage for vulnerable kids.  The Idaho Youth Ranch just opened a new residential treatment facility for high needs kids, using mostly private funding.  I haven’t toured it yet, but I have been following the progress and I am excited to see the facility in person.  However, it only has 64 beds.   A new residential treatment facility is coming to Idaho Falls, but it will only have 24 beds.   We have approximately 1500-2000 kids in foster care in Idaho at any given time, and it is estimated that approximately 80% of them have serious mental health needs.  It is probably the largest unmet need in the foster care system, because kids in crisis are very hard to place safely.  

Nearly all foster kids are on Medicaid, further limiting options for treatment.  

We need to do more to build the resiliency of kids who come into the child welfare system, so we can end trauma cycles.   I know that the government is not here to solve all of the social problems in this sometimes cruel world, and I am a firm believer in teaching kids to rely on their personal agency to improve their own lives.  We can do better for our kids by investing, as a society and as communities, in the resources they need to help themselves.

LGBTQ YOUTH

LGBTQ children experience suicidality at a rate 4 times higher than their peers (Trevor Project). Surveys isolate rejection from family and lack of tolerance and acceptance as the main causes of these feelings of distress.  The increase of Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric has led some LDS mothers to form organizations like the Mama Dragons to protect their kids from hate, with many supporters here in South East Idaho.  I am proud to know the organizers of All Under One Roof, a Pocatello organization that strives to help LGBTQ youth and young adults, and members of the community of all ages,  feel seen, heard, and accepted for who they are.  

We have all witnessed the increasing attacks on the LGBTQ community, nationwide and without doubt in Idaho over the last two years.    Idaho was the target of an intended hate crime organized by a white nationalist organization, the Patriot Front, just last year. 

I worry that the anti-LGBTQ political rhetoric and some hate speech coming from some extremists and hate groups in Idaho is reinforcing the idea that this community will not be accepted.  I worry this will lead or is already leading to higher rates of suicide and severe mental distress. Our LGBTQ kids are especially vulnerable.  No one deserves to feel unsafe or unwelcome in Idaho because of their gender identity, expression, or sexual orientation.  

POSTPARTUM RISKS AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

1 in 7 women will develop postpartum depression while a smaller percentage experience postpartum psychosis.  When severe, postpartum depression and psychosis can lead to child neglect, child abuse, and serious violence to self or others.  A lot of folks are surprised to learn that suicide is a leading cause of pregnancy related mortality in the first year post-partum. Postpartum depression is common and treatable; however, many suffering feel like they need to handle it without support. I worry about losing providers who can help identify risks and direct mothers to the resources they need. I worry about the dissolution of the Maternal Mortality Review Commission, which was funded entirely by federal money.  Idaho is now the only state without one. 

 I worry about the legislature’s refusal to extend Medicaid coverage to the first 12 months postpartum. This is troubling because we know that the first 12 months post-partum are the most dangerous for the mother, both for mental health and physical health. We remain the only state in the nation with a near total abortion ban that is not on track to extend Medicaid coverage for this postpartum period.  Providing much needed support for our most vulnerable mothers and children is not “socialism.” It is good governance, it is a smart investment of our government resources, and it is “pro life.”   

ADDICTION

Professionals now have a better understanding of the relationship between substance use disorders and mental health. People with mental health struggles are more likely to engage in substance use. People engaged in substance use are more likely to develop mental health struggles. 

Once one is hooked on opioids, there is always a hard way out. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend the movie “Painkiller” on Netflix.  While Painkiller is a fictionalized depiction of the birth of the opioid crisis, it refers to many real events and figures, including the Sackler family. Sadly, Painkiller only scratches the surface of the damage that opioid abuse has caused. The collateral effects of addiction do not just tear families apart; the suffering ripples throughout our communities.  Anyone who has ever loved someone addicted to opioids knows that shame and blame are not effective public health policy tools.   They also know how easy it can be to slip into an opioid addiction.  

The Idaho Legislature is not only failing to seriously address this crisis, but in some ways, they are actively making it worse. Previously, the state provided free naloxone kits to bars, hotels, restaurants, and tattoo parlors to combat overdose death.  Now, the state has restricted the use of these kits to first responders only. This is extremely problematic because only 25% of Narcan has been administered by first responders in the past. 

Many, including the proponents of this legislation and the IFF, would like you to believe that harm reduction is a silly government program that gives drugs to addicts. I prefer a data based rather than shame/blame approach to saving lives, reducing overdoses, and solving the root causes of addiction.  There will be more to come from me on this growing crisis in Idaho that specifically impacts District 29A.  

Despite the challenges, Southeastern Idaho Public Health, the Pocatello Police Department, and Governor Little have been doing their best to stem the tide. In addition to a series of info sessions, they have been sponsoring initiatives to distribute Narcan, educate community members, and target fentanyl distributors. Bannock County is part of the Oregon/Idaho High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area state/federal partnership; we join the Boise area and parts of northern Idaho as high activity areas for fentanyl distribution..  Our local federal and state prosecutors and law enforcement officers are doing their best to keep these dangerous drugs off of our streets, out of our homes, and away from our kids. I support all of these efforts, but prison is not the only answer.  We need to adequately resource prevention programs; education programs; and evidence based treatment programs.  We need to support those addicted so they can help themselves recover.  

I value all human life. No one deserves to feel so alone, so thrown away by their communities, that they see suicide as their only option. The Idahoans and specifically the Pocatellans I know are compassionate and they care for the well-being of their neighbors. Idaho is doing a lot of good things to support our vulnerable populations, but we can do much better.  I want to get on the team and do my best to help.  My promise to you is that I will not close my eyes. I will learn what I can, promote what I can, and I will always keep Idaho’s mental health and related substance use crisis at the forefront of my mind, especially for our most vulnerable populations.  

If you or someone you know is experiencing thoughts of self harm, please seek help and reach out to someone you know for support.  Dial 911 for emergencies or visit your local emergency room.  Dial or text 988 to connect with the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, active in Idaho.

If you have a family member or friend who is suicidal, do not leave them alone. Try to get the person to seek help immediately from an emergency room, physician, or mental health professional. Take seriously any comments about suicide or wishing to die. Even if you do not believe your family member or friend will actually attempt suicide, this person is in distress and can benefit from your help in receiving mental health treatment.

You are worthy.  You are worth it.  You matter.  You are not alone.

The lecture tonight was focused on the state of our nation, and how we might swing the pendulum back to civil political discourse. I know that seems impossible right now, but I agree with Mr. Heffner that the pendulum can swing back. I have lived long enough to know how the pendulum swings, and I have also lived long enough to understand how dangerous current rhetoric has become. January 6th. Paul Pelosi and false narratives. Threats to our Supreme Court Justices. Armed and masked “poll watchers.” Election deniers still getting credibility. This nation feels fragile, and our local politics are not immune to that fragility.

We have faced dark days in the past. My parents and their generation were forever imprinted by the back to back politically motivated assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Jr.; Bobby Kennedy; Martin Luther King Jr.; and Malcom X. My parents were born and raised in Chicago. My father was the son and grandson of Irish immigrants, raised on the hard streets of Southside Chicago, in an ethnically segregated neighborhood. My very early years were spent in a mixed race Southside Chicago neighborhood, blocks from the racial violence of the 1968 brutal riots. My parents were very young then, and they were both deeply affected by the racial, ethnic, and class injustices they witnessed and experienced, firsthand, on a daily basis. In turn, they were able to teach me and my siblings about civil rights and the meaning of real justice, and the promises of equality under the law. I am deeply grateful for all of these lessons. This is my origin story. This is why I believe in our Constitutional promises. This is why I fight the good fight for my clients every day. This is why, I am certain, that I am inspired to fight for your civil rights every single day as your representative in House District 29A.

This is what I took away from Mr. Heffner tonight: the key to civil discourse and swinging the pendulum back is embracing the tension between real intellectual honesty, and curiosity about why someone takes the position that they take. Wow. This is so powerful because it is so simple, and it is so true. We cannot sit in judgment. Judgment does not lead to understanding. We need to get curious about why we disagree, and why people feel they way they feel, because there are truths there. But we also need to hold ourselves and everyone accountable to truth. We need to understand that truths are colored by individual experiences. We need to listen to each other more, and judge each other less. This is the key to civil discourse in politics.

I think this election cycle has been the ugliest in Pocatello’s modern history. The Democratic legislative candidates are continually getting mailers that lie about us, funded by dark out of state money. If you received a mailer about me wanting to raise your taxes, that is a lie. Read my FB posts. I have voiced support for Reclaim Idaho’s ballot initiative for public education funding, and I reposted when fact checkers in the press found that the Reclaim Idaho proposal would NOT have raised your taxes. That ballot initiative was pulled from the ballot when the Governor and the legislature stepped up in special session to pass the most significant investment in public education we have seen in decades, and I still credit Reclaim Idaho for that accomplishment. For the record, I support the Governor’s 2022 Special Session HB 1, co- sponsored by James Ruchti, that provided both for public education funding and for tax breaks. I do not want to raise your taxes. I want to make your cost of living more affordable by reducing property tax, grocery tax, gas tax, and income tax burdens.

I think I have said all I need to say about the defacing of my opponent’s billboard. He did not deserve to feel unsafe; no one deserves that. I fully understand the anger of people of reproductive age about the Dobbs decision and the Idaho trigger bans. No one deserves to feel threatened, and that includes my opponent and his family.

James and Nate have also received ugly and threatening messages, as a result of the negative and false campaign mailers funded by out of state dark money.

We need to listen to each other more. We need to judge each other less. We find so much common ground when we do that. That is the real promise of democracy. That is the real promise of America.

This country has always been complicated and messy. It is also beautiful and inspiring. My father, the son and grandson of Irish immigrants, and my mother, the granddaughter of German and Italian immigrants, taught me to appreciate the freedoms and possibility that our forefathers created with our Constitution. We can all be better. We can all do better. Let us all learn to listen to understand. Vote. Engage. Listen.

I am running against a moderate GOP, Dustin Manwaring. I have appreciated having a clean campaign season with Dustin, with neither of us attacking each other’s character. Dustin is a fine person. It is critical, however, that voters understand their choices and that they understand what is at stake on November 8 in Idaho.

Running as a moderate Democrat, I cannot be pressured by the IFF. I do not need their dark out of state money. I will not get primaried by my own party, as Dustin was. The pressure on Dustin will intensify if he returns to Boise in 2023, and it sounds like he is already feeling that pressure. This week he received an Independent Expenditure from the Idaho Federation for Children PAC. This PAC is funded by out of state dark money with the express purpose of defunding our public education system. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_American_Federation_for_Children

Dustin also revealed at a Pocatello Rotary candidate forum last week that he will support the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s “money follows the child” proposal, which will by definition gut public education funding. It is my view that Idaho already offers a lot of taxpayer support for charter schools and homeschooling. Idaho has underfunded public education for decades. I cannot support more diversion of money from public education without a thorough economic analysis of how that will impact the economies of scale built into the current system. By necessity, taking money away from the public education system and giving it back to parents will increase the per student cost of maintaining the same facilities and programs, and there is no feasible way to size down costs in the short term. As a result, we may lose important secondary systems like music, art, and high school athletics. This kind of social experiment is irresponsible public policy without a full and thorough economic projection and analysis of how it may impact our current systems.

I am a civil rights and family law attorney with over thirty years’ experience. I understand how these laws impact your fundamental rights, legally, and I am vested in finding out how they impact our constituents on the ground when they are passed. A vote for me is a vote for making sure your own voice, and not the voice of the far right GOP, is heard in the Idaho legislature.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

At League of Women Voter’s Forum held October 18, 2022, Dustin Manwaring denied that he voted for any of Idaho’s trigger bans. 

In fact, Dustin voted for the 2021 Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act, and he co-sponsored the 2022 Amended Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act.  The 2022 statute is modeled after the Texas “bounty hunter” law, which allows family members even of rapists to sue for a minimum $20k of damages for illegal abortions.  Idaho law does not give these same relatives, except for the parents, the right to sue for wrongful death or visitation or custody of alive child relatives.  Both statutes were trigger bans and both also criminalize doctors who perform illegal abortions, with limited exceptions for life and health of the mother and rape and incest.  Links:  https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0366/; https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2022/legislation/S1309/.  

Dustin was absent for the vote on S1309 in 2022, but he was a co-sponsor.  

The criminal penalties for the 2021 and 2022 bills are superseded by the criminal penalties of the 2020 trigger ban, which bans all abortions done after conception (but excludes the use of contraceptives including Plan B from the definition of abortion).  The civil liability part of Dustin’s 2022 bill – the bounty hunter part of the 2022 statute- survives.  All three statutes are pending review by the Idaho Supreme Court, but the Court did not enjoin enforcement, which is not a great sign.  The two active statutes, the 2020 extreme criminal statute and the 2022 bounty hunter 6 week ban statute Dustin co-sponsored, are currently modified by Judge Winmill’s ruling that the federal EMTALA statute requires Idaho to allow abortions in emergency medical situations. 

Dustin did not even remember what he supported, in this election year where this issue is on everyone’s mind following the Dobbs decision. Everyone who cares about this issue should be concerned.

The Idaho Medical Association recently passed resolutions denouncing the current legislation as unworkable from a provider’s perspective. https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2022-10-14/idaho-medical-association-passes-resolutions-to-protect-pregnant-patients-amid-abortion-bans

If we get another shot at drafting these bills, and I think there is a good chance we will, I will listen to the stakeholders, including the medical providers and people of reproductive age, to make sure I fully understand how the bills will work in the real world. Too often bills have been passed in Idaho based on ideology and how it plays to a certain base, and without understanding the legal, financial, and practical costs. Please see my blog posted a few weeks ago, where I break down the legal and practical problems with the current legislation. I will add that two thirds of all pregnant people do not even know they are pregnant at six weeks, which is only two weeks past a regular period cycle. Dustin’s position on reproductive rights cannot be characterized as moderate. He has supported some of the harshest and most draconian abortion laws existing in the nation.

Dustin also voted for the No Public Funds for Abortion Act in 2021:https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2021/legislation/H0220/ 

The stated purpose of this act is nonsensical, because no Idaho public funds have ever been used directly for abortion services, except for medically necessary abortions through Medicaid.  Medically necessary Medicaid abortions are still allowed by this statute, because there is a federal court order from 1992 compelling it in Idaho on equal protection grounds.   The real purpose of this law was to defund Planned Parenthood in the wake of the fake “baby parts” scandal.  https://www.kivitv.com/news/political/inside-the-statehouse/gov-little-signs-bill-to-defund-abortion-providers-in-idaho; https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/fd/de/fddee2ba-5ae1-4a89-9c4f-7e72c8a4db02/210218-fact-sheet-cmp-fetal-tissue-backgrounder-prod.pdf.

The effect of the bill is to strip Planned Parenthood of federal Title X money coming through Idaho to support family planning education and services.  In other words, from a policy perspective, it is a disaster for reducing unwanted pregnancies in Idaho.  https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family-planning-funding-restrictions. 

If we really want to reduce “elective” abortions, we need more family planning and education services, not less.  The number of “elective” abortions in America has been trending down, and that is also true in Idaho.  Due to lack of providers, as well as culture, we have had a much lower than national average abortion rate in Idaho to begin with.  Abortion rates peak in Idaho, and everywhere, during times of financial stress.  https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/18/idahos-annual-abortion-reports-tell-us-the-demographics-of-who-gets-them-when-how-and-where/; https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-idaho

We could really make a difference here with good sex ed and contraception availability.  The people really being hurt by our current laws, including the laws supported by Dustin, are the doctors who risk criminal prosecution for practicing standard of care medicine; the women facing terrible health and life risks or the emotional harm of carrying nonviable babies to term; and the rape and incest victims forced to engage with law enforcement and wait for a report before they can abort.  

The No Public Funds for Abortion Act also has the additional effect of chilling speech on public universities about abortion services.  The statute does not allow abortion providers like Planned Parenthood to offer any kind of reproductive education in Idaho public facilities.  It is one of the statutes relied on by the University of Idaho general counsel in the memo issued September 26, 2022.  The statute is so broadly written that it has been misconstrued to prohibit any speech by public employees or sanctioned by public entities that could be viewed to “promote” abortion.  I think that interpretation leads to a First Amendment violation, and a lot of civil rights attorneys agree with me: 

https://maryforidaho.com/some-thoughts-on-the-idaho-university-reproductive-rights-censorship-controversy/ The ACLU and others are preparing to sue.

CENSORSHIP

In addition to supporting the abortion censorship bill discussed above, Dustin also voted for our “Critical Race Theory” legislation. The bill itself is vague, and to my knowledge it has not been prosecuted. Most reasonable prosecutors don’t want to violate the First Amendment. While defending the bill on the House floor, GOP Representative Heather Scott stated that books like To Kill a Mockingbird would violate this law and should be banned by it. Jake Stevens, running alongside of Dustin, has stated that Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States would also be banned by this statute, because it teaches history from the perspective of explaining the actual consequence of policies on marginalized people in America. This statute is a dangerous infringement of our free speech rights. We should not be afraid of ideas in this country. We should be afraid of the people who would silence us.

Dustin also voted to criminalize librarians in 2021. That statute was killed in the Senate, but it would have subjected librarians in public schools and libraries to misdemeanor criminal liability for checking out material that is deemed “harmful” to minors. Checking out books like The Art of Being a Wallflower and the Judy Blume books, and any books that feature LBGTQ+ characters, could subject librarians to prosecution under strained and very subjective interpretations of what is and what is not “harmful” to minors. This is also a dangerous bill, and if it is resurrected in 2023, I am not sure you can trust Dustin to vote against it. I will vote against it, because I do not believe in book bans. There are already standards in place to protect children from obscenity and pornography. Any more protection from “harmful content” should be provided by parents, not by librarians.

Vote for Mary Shea for House Seat 29A. I will listen to you, and I will vote my conscience and for what is best for all Idahoans.

If you would like to speak with me as a candidate on this or any other important issue for this campaign, please reach out to me through the contact info on this website.

As you have probably read about or heard about, the University of Idaho General Counsel’s office issued a memo to staff that censored speech on campus about abortion and contraception. The memo stated that they would not provide birth control on campus except for condoms to prevent STI, but they would refer students off campus. The campus health center is still allowed to give medical advice and consult. In the classroom, faculty are allowed to discuss abortion only as it relates to the topic they are teaching, and they must remain neutral on the subject. They are not otherwise allowed to discuss abortion or contraception with students. Faculty were warned that violations can lead to immediate job termination, a potential felony charge, and a lifetime ban from public service.

The following week, University of Idaho administrators issued a clarification by email, stating that this memo from General Counsel’s office did not change any academic freedom policies on campus. This email also clarified that birth control would remain available on campus. The email was otherwise silent on whether the rest of the memo was enforceable as policy on campus.

There are discussions on going, and I recognize as a former instructor at a public university (Idaho State University) as well as an attorney who has advised public universities, that General Counsel advice does not take the place of University policy. Right now I think everyone is very confused about what they can and cannot say on public universities as a result of a poorly written statute and some confusing messaging on college campuses. The end result is that speech is chilled on public campuses about a topic that many students would like to be talking about right now, right before an important midterm election.

Fortunately for students, there is a Planned Parenthood close by in Pullman, Washington, where reproductive rights remain fully intact.

Boise State University put out a similar memo, but they restricted their concerns to promotion of abortion, and not contraception.

As of today, Idaho State University has not issued a memo, but they have counseled their faculty similarly through General Counsel’s Office. Professors in the Political Science Department decided against holding a planned question/answer event about the Dobbs decision and reproductive rights, sponsored jointly by the Law Club and the Political Science Club. The event was set to happen on September 27, 2022, the day after the news broke about the University of Idaho memo and controversy. In the wake of the national news event, the professors decided to turn the event into a simple meet and greet. James Ruchti and I had planned to attend the question and answer session, but instead we met with students and faculty. We were told that the ISU General Counsel was staying “neutral,” but they did caution the faculty that Idaho law was muddy.

News reports have stated that the College of Idaho does not believe they have any legal restrictions against providing contraceptive care or information on campus.

As a threshold matter, I agree with President Biden’s Press Secretary that “nothing under Idaho law justifies the University’s decision to deny students access to contraception.” https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/09/27/white-house-calls-idaho-abortion-laws-extreme-and-backwards-in-response-to-university-memo/

The general consensus I am hearing among lawyers is that the University of Idaho has overreacted, and their policy on this is problematic, especially concerning contraception. I will explain my take on the law. I am extremely concerned that there may be concerted pressure campaign happening on college campuses in Idaho right now. The timing is incredibly suspect – six weeks before a statewide midterm election, where abortion is definitely on the minds of many, and with reports that college students are registering to vote at significantly higher rates that usual midterm election years. The intent and the effect seems to be to chill speech on Idaho college campuses about reproductive rights. I believe and other lawyers believe this is a very blatant First Amendment violation, and Idaho is now opening the door to more expensive lawsuits they will not be able to defend.

The University of Idaho memo seems to result from their interpretation of two Idaho statutes; Idaho Code § 18-603 (part of the Idaho abortion criminal code Chapter); and Idaho Code § 18-8702, a new statute enacted in 2021, the same legislative session as the second trigger ban. Idaho Code § 18-8701 (now amended), the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act. The University’s reliance on these two statutes is problematic and it is disconcerting that the academic institutions of this State did not even seem to consider the First Amendment before censoring this topic on campus. The statutes they are concerned about are unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Idaho equivalent, at least with regard to contraception and legal abortion. Let me explain.

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled that banning contraceptive use violates a fundamental right to privacy of intimate relationships and the decision whether and when to bear children, within marriages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In 1972, the United States Supreme Court extended that right to unmarried persons. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). This decision was extended not solely on privacy grounds, but rather on equal protection grounds: the Court held that treating married couples different than nonmarried couples in this respect violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Idaho Code § 18-603 bans anyone who is not a licensed physician (or someone licensed and acting under their direction, like a nurse or a PA), from advertising or publicizing access to abortion or contraception services. The crime is a felony. The statute was recodified in 1972, the year of both Roe v. Wade and the Eisenstadt v. Baird case, but it derives from an old statute from the territory days enacted originally in 1887. It is critical to remember that this was the era of American history where medical doctors were trying to push midwives out of obstetric medicine so they could take over the lucrative business. (See Amicus Brief filed by the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians filed in the Dobbs case). https://www.historians.org/news-and-advocacy/aha-advocacy/aha-amicus-curiae-brief-in-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-(september-2021)

It is also important to remember that this old statute was first passed in the context of the 1873 Comstock Act. This law declared birth control immoral and obscene. Margaret Sanger was arrested in 1929 after giving a speech in violation of that law. https://archivesfoundation.org/amendingamerica/indictment-margaret-sanger-1914/#:~:text=The%201873%20Comstock%20Act%20defined,Government%20to%20drop%20the%20charges

In 1977, the United States Supreme Court held that advertisement of contraceptive services is protected as commercial speech under the First Amendment. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977). This decision was followed and extended to direct mail advertising in Bolger v. Young’s Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983). Advertising for abortion services is also protected by the First Amendment. Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975). The statute at issue in that case tried to criminalize advertisements circulated in Virginia about abortion services offered in New York.

Since the 1970’s, the United States Supreme Court has held in case after case that commercial advertising for services that the law permits is protected by the First Amendment. The State must show an important government interest to burden that First Amendment right.

It is critical for me to keep reminding everyone: contraception remains 100% legal in Idaho under the trigger bans. Today, in Idaho, contraception is not considered abortion. Not Plan B, not the IUD. Idaho Code § 18-604(1); Idaho Code § 18-8801 (I will explain more below)…

You can see where I’m going here…

The second law the Universities seem to be concerned about relates to public funding for abortion care, Idaho Code § 18-8705. This is the law that was passed in 2021 with the Fetal Heartbeat Unborn Child Protection Act. It was completely unnecessary, because no public funding in Idaho has ever gone directly to abortion care. The real purpose of the statute was to defund organizations like Planned Parenthood, because if makes it a crime for any public funds or any public officer, employee, or agency to promote, procure, provide, induce, refer, counsel, or provide facilities or services for abortion care if they are not a medical provider. Federal law already forbids federal tax dollars from being used to fund abortion care, with limited exceptions..https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/the-hyde-amendment-restricting-abortion-coverage-for-40-years Idaho was sued in 1993 by the ACLU in Roe v. Harris, forcing Idaho to provide medically necessary abortion care as part of the obstetric services covered by Medicaid. https://www.aclu.org/other/access-denied-origins-hyde-amendment-and-other-restrictions-public-funding-abortion. But generally, elective abortions have not been paid for by Idaho or federal tax money in any direct way for many decades. The 2021 statute was intended to punish organizations like Planned Parenthood by making sure they could not get any state funds to provide other kinds of reproductive health care for patients, because they promote and provide abortion care for their patients who want that service.

This law has been twisted in Idaho. First, some in the press originally stated their belief that this statute bans Plan B from being provided on public university campuses. https://www.idahoednews.org/news/idaho-colleges-dont-have-much-freedom-to-move-in-a-post-roe-climate/#:~:text=09%2F26%2F2022-,Idaho%20colleges%20don’t%20have%20much%20freedom%20to,in%20a%20post%2DRoe%20climate&text=Colleges%20and%20universities%20across%20the,decision%20to%20overturn%20Roe%20v

It does not. This code section specifically defines abortion to include medication to end a “clinically diagnosable pregnancy.” Idaho Code § 18-8702. Early pregnancy is diagnosed clinically through measuring the hCg hormone, which is not produced until after the fertilized egg is implanted. Plan B works to prevent implantation, and it is only effective if taken within three days of fertilization. This time frame is too soon to diagnose the pregnancy by ultrasound, and ultrasounds are not effective at diagnosing early pregnancy until a period is missed, generally two to three weeks post ovulation. This code section says nothing at all about contraception, and Plan B is defined as contraception, medically and legally. The media and speculative hysteria about Plan B being banned on college campuses in Idaho is completely unnecessary under this Idaho law.

This 2021 statute is terrible, because it is so broadly written that it is chilling perfectly legal speech. The statute is written so that it bans even the legislative committees working for the special protection of women or children from promoting abortion services. Some abortion care remains legal in Idaho, even post-Dobbs, and even under the Idaho trigger bans. Namely, victims of rape or incest may procure legal abortions in Idaho. Women who may die from a pregnancy can procure legal abortions in Idaho. The First Amendment allows us to talk about and promote legal activities in this great country.

Further, the older 1972 statute is also illegal and unconstitutional for the same reasons, until or unless the United States Supreme Court changes its mind about allowing promotion of legal contraception and abortion services. Criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively under the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution. I understand concern that the current Supreme Court may decide that states like Idaho can ban contraception and all forms of abortion, but they have not done that yet. If they do that in the future, Idaho can criminalize this activity prospectively, but Idaho cannot do anything about it now, criminally, because this is protected speech right now under current First Amendment case law.

Which brings me back to my concern. Why are the Universities doing this, all at the same time, six weeks before an election, and in the context of consistent media reports that young people on college campuses all over Idaho are registering to vote at high rates? Concern about a future hypothetical test case in the United States Supreme Court, which cannot impact criminal statutes retroactively in any event, is not good reason to stop full offering contraceptive services or banning speech about it on campus when it is all perfectly legal under current Idaho law. Even if the United States Supreme Court eventually says it is okay to limit speech concerning illegal abortions, they have not done it yet, and they can’t do it retroactively. Right now, their precedent says that abortion care can be promoted and advertised. There is no good reason that I can see to chill speech weeks before an election on a topic of critical importance to the faculty, staff, and students.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”  George Washington. 

            “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own.  Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”  Benjamin Franklin.

            “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”  Benjamin Franklin.

            “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”  James Madison.

            “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”  Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice.

            “Let us dare to read, think, speak and write.”  John Adams.

 Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices of the modern era, and a fierce constitutional originalist, defended these First Amendment principles with vigor:  “The first axiom of the First Amendment is that majority preferences must be expressed in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its content.”  R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).  In a case involving California’s attempt to regulate the distribution of violent video games to minors under an obscenity statute, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion rejecting the attempt:  “…the obscenity exception to the First Amendment does no cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of sexual conduct.”  Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011). 

Content based regulations on speech are “presumptively unconstitutional.”  Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015).  Content-based restrictions “completely undercut our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”  Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972). 

This is a country founded on the bedrock principle that the government will not abridge the free flowing sharing of ideas, without very good reason.  The exceptions to the First Amendment are very well delineated.  The government may not issue prior restraints on speech just because some do not like the message.  It is now more important than ever that we have full and honest discussions with each other about these important issues, because now the states must make difficult choices about how the government should or should not regulate these plainly intimate and personal choices for their citizens.  These principles are heightened in academic settings, because the nation’s commitment to academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.” Keyishian v. Bd. Of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 602-04 (1967).

Idaho law also has a very long history and tradition of promoting freedom of speech and freedom of ideas.  Idaho Constitution Article 1, Section 9:  “Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”  We need to honor that tradition.  Idaho statutes must bow to the Idaho and US Constitutions.   

The University of Idaho has already been served with at least one “cease and desist” letter threatening litigation if they do not modify their policy.  I suspect others will join very soon, and Idaho is about to face another embarrassing lawsuit that cannot be defended.  Tax dollars will again be wasted. 

The University of Idaho policy needs to be rescinded and rewritten in a way that acknowledges the freedom of speech principles at stake.  People of reproductive age need to be able to get accurate information from trusted sources, and academic institutions need the freedom to allow full and robust discussion about issues of critical and topical public importance.  All of these unconstitutional “zombie laws” have got to be rescinded and rewritten so they do not chill free speech.

My concerns about the University of Idaho’s content based restrictions on speech concerning abortion and contraception, and about the statutes on which it relies, extend well beyond abortion.  Idaho along with other conservative areas of the country are seeing a wave of people trying to control the expression of ideas that they do not like, in public schools and in public libraries.  I believe they are a vocal minority, and we need to end voter apathy and stand up for our rights.  It is antithetical to our Constitutions, state and federal.  It is antithetical to a truly free society.  The speech being targeted here and elsewhere is not dangerous.  It is not obscene.  Our children are not exposed to pornography in public schools or in public libraries.  CRT is not a threat that warrants violating the First Amendment and the Idaho Constitutional principles I have outlined here.  (those laws are also unconstitutional for the same reasons…)

We should not be afraid of ideas in this great country, even when we don’t agree with them.  We should be very afraid of those who would limit our rights to express them. 

Mary Shea

all rights reserved.

We have not had to confront real legislative debate on this difficult and nuanced issue for fifty years.  Although Idaho and other states have passed abortion statutes in an attempt to challenge the Roe/Webster/Casey legal standard, legislators have not had to give a lot of thought to the real world implications of the statutes, because they were unenforceable until now.  Now the laws are active, and unfortunately, they are confusing and poorly drafted.  I have spoken with obstetricians throughout the state of Idaho, and they all express a common concern.  In a medical emergency, they are now caught in an impossible Hobson’s choice created by the Idaho legislature:  if they act too late to save the life of the mother, they risk maternal life and health and face civil medical malpractice and licensing risks.  If they act too soon, they risk criminal prosecution and their medical licenses, as well as civil lawsuits filed by family members.  These risks for acting too soon in performing an abortion will not be covered by their medical malpractice insurance carriers.  

The medical procedures that fall under the umbrella legal/medical term “abortion” are incredibly common, and not for the reasons a lot of people assume.  One in four women will have an abortion before they reach age 50.  That sounds like a problem until you understand that abortion is the standard of care treatment for pregnancy complications that threaten a pregnant person’s life and health.  In Southeast Idaho, elective abortion has not been available for decades.  Pregnant people in this region have had to travel to obtain this kind of elective abortion care for a long time.  However, abortions have been provided regularly in our region, for good reason.  Pregnancy complications are common, and they are even more common for people of color.  Pregnancy remains a medically risky endeavor even for otherwise healthy people of reproductive age, and it is far riskier to maternal life and health to carry a baby to term than it is to have a safe medical abortion.  

Abortion is the treatment for ectopic and other nonviable and risky pregnancies.  The vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester, but sometimes life threatening and/or catastrophic fetal medical issues are not discovered until the second or third trimester.  That is why strict and rigid cutoffs are unworkable, and we should trust medical professionals to guide pregnant people in making these difficult decisions. Risks associated with therapeutic abortions increase as a pregnancy progresses, and responsible medical providers already know they cannot offer this choice unless the risk of not doing the procedure outweighs the risk of doing the procedure.  These very difficult medical decisions need to be made as early in the pregnancy as possible, but the ob-gyn providers I have spoken with will always respect maternal choices to carry the pregnancy forward despite the risks to their own life and health.  Abortion is never forced on a patient.  

Ectopic pregnancy is very common, affecting 1 in 50 pregnancies.  Approximately fifteen percent of first trimester pregnancies end in miscarriage, and abortion care of some kind is often necessary to make sure no tissue remains that could cause more complications.  Fetal abnormalities are a common cause of miscarriage, but sometimes fetal abnormalities will survive the first trimester even when the abnormalities will lead to certain death and suffering when the baby is born, such as with anencephaly.  There are many other medical circumstances that require abortion care because of the very high risks to maternal life and health, including molar pregnancy, heterotopic pregnancy, twin reverse anemia polycythemia sequence, high order multiple gestations, placenta abruption, placenta previa, and placenta accreta, just to name some common complications of pregnancy.  Maternal age, too young or too old, creates high risk for dangerous and life threatening complications.  Pre-existing medical conditions including preeclampsia, cancer, pulmonary hypertension, autoimmune disease, heart failure, kidney disease and other chronic illness can all make a pregnancy medically risky and deadly.    

Just to give one example of the difficulty in medical decision making, one in three pregnant people with pulmonary hypertension will die if they bring their pregnancy to term.   I think we would all agree that is an uncomfortably high risk of death for any medical condition.  Is that risk high enough to terminate pregnancy under Idaho law?  Idaho doctors are unsure.  There was a report this week about a Texas woman who had to travel out of state to obtain a medical abortion to save her life, even though her baby would not survive beyond a few hours post-birth, because her doctors were unsure about whether they could provide that care.  The Idaho laws are modeled on the Texas laws, and in fact our statutes are even more restrictive.  This identical situation can easily happen here.  Do you want Idaho legislators to make that kind of life or death decision for you or your pregnant loved one?  I think most Idahoans would agree that these kinds of decisions belong to the pregnant person,  in consultation with their families and medical providers.  Asking pregnant people to travel out of state to obtain medically necessary life saving abortion care is cruel.  In many cases, that travel and built in additional time delay greatly increases their medical risks.  Their partners and their other children also do not deserve this cruelty.  

Sadly, rape and incest are also more common in our communities than many of us want to acknowledge.  I work in the legal system and specifically in the child welfare system.  I have had clients with some of the most heartbreaking trauma experiences you can imagine.  I have represented many child victims and I have represented their agonized parents.  Studies have shown consistently and conservatively that approximately one in three American women will experience sexual violence in their lifetimes.   Adolescents aged 12-17 are by far the most likely to be sexually victimized.  Nearly 80% of female sexual assault victims report their first assault before the age of 25.  

Although this is an extremely difficult area for data collection, some authorities estimate that some form of incest occurs in over 10% of American families.  These crimes are committed by people the victim loves and trusts, and usually the crimes begin when the victim is too young to understand what is happening to them.  Sadly, in Idaho rape and incest numbers have risen precipitously in the last five years, and that is just the data that is reported.   In my experience working in the child welfare system, most children who are sexually abused are not assaulted by strangers.  Most are abused by close family members.  

In a study published in 2015, data collected on reported rapes between 2009-2015 found that only 20% of the reported rapes in Idaho resulted in arrest, and only 8% resulted in convictions. Idaho had to enact legislation in 2019 because so many rape kits had gone unprocessed and untracked, leading to no justice at all for the victims.  Although Idaho is taking some steps to improve the broken system, it is easy to understand why victims are reluctant to report.  I can confirm through my experience that the criminal justice system is re-traumatizing 100% of the time for those who report, and victims seldom see justice.  

This is why the people I am speaking to all over District 29 and all over Idaho are so very angry about Idaho’s trigger bans.  Many of us have needed abortion care, and most of us know someone who has needed abortion care.  Most of us understand that the person who is most affected by the decision is in the best position to determine whether the reason for the procedure is a good one.

The Idaho laws right now are a confusing, jumbled mess.  The short story is that Idaho medical providers are no longer free to offer abortion care except in a hospital emergency care setting (and only by virtue of Judge Winmill’s recent ruling), or in other circumstances where the doctor determines “in good faith” that the fetus must die for the mother to live.  Doctors do not understand where the line is where they can act to reduce or eliminate risk to maternal life, and they have stated so in the Idaho court cases and in the press.   They do not want to wait until their patient is dying before they can provide lifesaving care.  That very idea – forcing doctors to watch their patients endure deadly risk and decline – is antithetical to their Hippocratic oath.  As most of us know through experience of some kind, pregnancy complications can turn deadly very quickly.  Hesitation and delay will, without any doubt in any medical provider’s mind, cause needless maternal death.  Pregnancy complications do not always end in maternal death.  Many times, the complications result in medical conditions that are life changing:  loss of organs; loss of brain function; loss of limbs; loss of fertility.  Doctors need to be able to act to protect maternal health as well as maternal life, and they need to be able to act in time to eliminate or reduce risk.

The current Idaho legislation is breathtaking in its cruelty. I would like to give the Idaho GOP legislators some grace on this, given that until this year, they knew these laws would be unenforceable when they were enacted.  I struggle giving that grace, given that the Idaho GOP platform currently states that they would like NO exceptions to abortion bans, including to save the life of the mother.  It shocks the conscience that they would vote this way, this year, knowing that the laws they enact will now go into effect.  Based on my conversations with so many of you, I think the Idaho GOP who voted that way at the convention are grossly out of touch with their Idaho constituents, regardless of party affiliation.  This position shows a gross lack of understanding about the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbirth, and a shocking lack of understanding of how many mothers will die without meaningful exceptions.  Most pregnant people seeking abortion care are mothers to other children. That should matter to your legislators, and it should cause them to re-write the current laws so that we can protect maternal health and life in a compassionate and fair way.  

No matter what you are seeing on social media, the current Idaho abortion trigger laws contain no language that would allow abortions even when the pregnancy is nonviable (including ectopic pregnancy); when there is catastrophic fetal abnormality; when the mother is of tender age; or when the mother has mental disabilities incompatible with enduring a pregnancy.  Under the current laws, ectopic pregnancy by definition is a pregnancy, and the treatment for it is abortion, and it is currently illegal in Idaho until maternal life is on the line.  The lawyers for the Idaho legislature had to admit this to Judge Winmill in federal court arguments a few weeks ago – but they tried to assure the Judge that doctors and pregnant people should just trust prosecutors not to bring charges.  That is a hard ask of pregnant people and their doctors, particularly considering that Bannock County tried to prosecute a pregnant person who took RU-486 outside of a hospital setting ten years ago, even while Roe v. Wade was still good law.  

The rape and incest exceptions are similarly deeply flawed, to the point of cruelty.  A victim can obtain an abortion only if they are willing to report the crime to police or child welfare, and they must have a report in their hand before they can obtain the abortion.  I have worked on these cases for a long time, and I know that these investigations cannot be closed and reports cannot be issued until they have talked to all witnesses and suspects.  They cannot risk revealing investigation details until that is done.  It takes months in most cases, and in many hard cases in my experience, especially involving children, it typically takes six months or more to get those police reports.  This is a meaningless exception in practice.  Idaho abortion laws now force victims to engage in a system that hurts them more often than it helps them in order to terminate a pregnancy that results from that crime.  Even if they do that, by the time they are “eligible” to abort the pregnancy, it may be too late and they will have already suffered greatly.

The real goal of these laws is to make abortion virtually impossible to obtain in Idaho by driving the providers out of the state.  That is undoubtedly what will happen if we do not make real change, quickly.  I have friends who are delaying having children until these laws change, because they cannot bear the medical risks.  I know young people of reproductive age who are leaving Idaho over this.  We will soon lose the best ob-gyn and family practice doctors, because they will not want to offer maternal health care in this state with their hands tied behind their backs.  They will move to other states where they can practice standard of care obstetric medicine.  This will lead to even higher rates of maternal mortality in Idaho unless we turn this ship around.

In talking to so many of you now about this, I know that most of you do not want this cruel legislation.  You want a legislative scheme that is fair, that is compassionate.  You want something that protects maternal life and health, and not just the life of a fetus.  You want something that has meaningful exceptions for rape and incest.  You want the dignity of pregnant people restored to them. 

I did not agree with the legal reasoning of the Dobbs decision, and I do not think legal scholarship nor history will judge it kindly.  Nonetheless, I have to accept it.  Now your voice must be heard at the ballot box.  If pregnant people matter to you, vote for principle and character.  Vote for the person, and not for the party.  Know how your legislators will vote on this issue before you cast your ballot.

I will be following the Idaho state and federal litigation closely, and I will write future blogs on my thoughts as those cases continue to develop.  I want to be your legislator in Boise now more than ever.  I want to be there to advocate for repeal and re-writing of these laws.  I want to be there if the Idaho Supreme Court invalidates the current scheme as untenably vague and requires it to be re-written.  I want to be there to fight hard against any attempts to make this situation worse rather than better.  I want to be there to protect related rights to contraception and the right to love who you want to love.  I will fight for you and for fair reproductive rights for all.  

Mary

Like many of you I am talking to throughout this campaign, I have a lot of concerns about where Idaho has been heading for the last several years.  I worked for a GOP administration as a young lawyer many years ago.  The GOP of today is not the party it used to be.  Today and especially in Idaho, there seems to be a hyper focus on divisive culture war identity politics, and much less focus on solving real problems for real people. With my former GOP employers, if our legal team approached the GOP powers that be, whether in the legislature or in the Governor’s Office, and if we told them that a policy idea was going to be challenged in court and likely could not be defended successfully, they would listen to reason and pull the plug.  They would not waste a dime of taxpayer money on ideology that would never be implemented, and they certainly would not pay a dime of taxpayer money to attorneys who would challenge those policies in court.  Now in Idaho, the legislature has created a $20 million dollar attorney fee slush fund, intended specifically to pay legal costs for these losing battles of ideology.  It is fiscally irresponsible leadership.  The Idaho legislature needs more voices of reason.  That is why I decided to run.  

My late friend and colleague Senator Mark Nye, who represented Pocatello just as I hope to, was a terrific voice of reason in Boise.  I was honored to have his support with this candidacy.  Representative James Ruchti, my friend and colleague, has also served as a terrific voice of reason in Boise, and I am proud to be running alongside him in his candidacy to fill Mark’s vacant Senate seat.  Nate Roberts, who is running for the other House seat, District 29B, is another voice of reason.  Nate is an electrician by trade, but if you chat with him for a few minutes, you will quickly learn how knowledgeable he is about Idaho fiscal policy.  Nate has long been an advocate for the working class.  Together, James, Nate and I wish to represent the common sense view point of reasonable governance.  We will legislate with an evidence based approach, focusing specifically on how legislative policy impacts people in Idaho, and particularly us Pocatelloans, people who live in this community.  

I am concerned about Idaho’s abortion ban trigger laws and reproductive choice.  I will dedicate a blog post to this issue in the near future so I can take a deeper dive, but I stand with pregnant people and their medical providers on this very nuanced issue.  I trust that pregnant people and their medical providers can make these very difficult decisions for themselves, without uninformed judgment, and without interference by the state of Idaho.  I am committed to protecting all of the rights that surround this issue, including rights to access contraception and assisted reproductive technology.  I am committed to defending every Idahoan’s right to privacy in making personal choices about intimate relationships, child bearing, and child rearing.  I am hopeful that the state and federal legal challenges will be successful in invalidating what I think is very sloppy and frankly cruel legislation.  I want to be your legislator in Boise when they re-write these laws.  I will respect the will of my constituency on this issue, and I understand that most people in Pocatello do not support the total abortion ban advocated by the GOP.  Most people I speak with want some reasonable regulations that, as applied, are fair and compassionate.  We can protect and promote the sanctity of life and still allow pregnant people the dignity of autonomous decision making about their lives, their health, and their bodies. 

I am concerned about the economy, as I know so many of you are.  Property taxes are out of control in Idaho.  They were already problematic, but when Idaho property values soared in 2020 and 2021, so did property taxes.  I have some ideas about how the legislature should address this issue, including by implementing reasonable caps.  I will devote another blog post to this issue in the near future.  I will also discuss other ways we can help Idahoans survive this inflation, including by eliminating our grocery tax and implementing a gas tax holiday.  

I am very concerned about housing instability in Idaho.  With inflation, rising interest rates, and a looming recession, and with our minimum wage remaining at $7.25, and with the property values increasing so much over the past two years in Idaho, many working families are struggling to find and keep good housing.  The National Low Income Housing Coalition just released a report last week that found that Idahoans earning minimum wage must work 104 hours per week just to be able to afford a two bedroom apartment..

I will discuss this crisis and potential legislative policy ideas to help in a future post.  

I’ve been a lawyer for more than 30 years with an emphasis in family law and a specialty in child welfare law for over two decades. Based on my professional experience, as well as based on my love and compassion for all kids, and also because I am the mother to young adults, I am very concerned about the mental health crisis facing our youth today.  Suicide is now the number two cause of death among children and young adults aged ten and up.  That horrifying statistic has been true since 2016, and the problem is not getting better, it is getting worse.   It is unprecedented in our nation’s history.  I think there are a lot of causes, and it is important to remember that this was trending up even before the pandemic.  Solutions won’t be quick and they won’t be easy.  I am committed to finding hope and finding help for our kids in Idaho.  

I will post here about other issues as the campaign marches towards November 8.  I look forward to seeing you in the community in the coming weeks.  If you have any questions for me, feel free to send me an email or call me, or find me on social media and message me there.

Idaho is a beautiful state with kind and compassionate people living in it.  I want Idaho to be the best it can be, for all of us.

Mary