Idaho Supreme Court approves final language for Proposition One abortion initiative
BOISE, Idaho (KIFI) – After a flurry of legal filings, the Idaho Supreme Court approved new ballot language for the Proposition One abortion initiative on Sunday.
The Court ruled four to one that language submitted Saturday by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane meets the court’s requirements and state code.
The justices overrode Idahoans United for Women and Families’ objection to the revised language.
However, in an earlier decision on Friday, an unanimous court ruled partly in favor and partly against Idahoans United, asking Labrador and McGrane to rewrite the “Yes/No effect” statements because the previous ballot descriptions didn’t “clearly and concisely communicate the effect of each vote” as required by Idaho code.
Ultimately, the Court approved the following revised Proposition One “Yes/No” statements to appear on November’s ballot.
“A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability— defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures—and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy.”
“A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children by prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.”
Local News 8 reached out to supporters and opponents of Proposition One for their reactions to the ruling.
“We just wanted them to be honest brokers about the fact that doctors face criminal felony conviction, civil penalties, loss of licensure under Idaho’s current abortion ban,” said Idahoans United for Women and Families’ Executive Director Melanie Folwell. “Additionally, it’s really important to know that Idaho’s current ban has no exceptions for health and medical emergencies that include a fatal fetal diagnosis.”
However, Idaho Chooses Life characterized Proposition One as a “deadly ballot measure.”
“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not allow language to be offered to voters that made it more clear that the Defense of Life Act protects women as well as babies,” said Idaho Chooses Life Executive Director David Ripley in a statement. “Current law gives doctors broad discretion to act when there is a threat to the mother’s life. That is why the maternal mortality rate has declined – dramatically – over the last several years.”
Ultimately, Justice Gregory W. Moeller wrote (in part) that the “revised statements are consistent with the views expressed in our prior opinion … and that they also substantially comply with the requirements of Idaho Code 34-1810(1)(b).” Chief Justice G. Richard Bevon, Robyn M. Brody and Cynthia K.C. Meyer agreed.
Justice Colleen D. Zahn dissented, writing in part, “The revised Yes Statement substantially complies with Idaho Code section 34-1810(1)(b). However, I cannot conclude the same about the revised No Statement. I would conclude that the No Statement does not substantially comply because it introduces new terminology not found the Idaho statutes at issue or in the ballot materials for the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, and because the revised No Statement only restates one aspect of current Idaho law…”
Voters will make the final decision on Proposition One at the ballot box on November 3, 2026.
Click here to follow the original article.
