Posted on 09/02/2026 7:43:35 PM PDT by Morgana
BOISE (CN) — Reproductive health advocates sparred with Idaho before the state Supreme Court on Wednesday in an effort to change an abortion access proposition’s ballot language ahead of the November election.
The dispute concerns language used to describe the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, an initiative from Idahoans United for Women and Families.
The group accuses Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane and Attorney General Raul Labrador of mischaracterizing the initiative in the section of the ballot that explains the effect of a yes or no vote.
“These statements must be clear and concise; the proposed statements are neither,” argued Jennifer Aiko, attorney with Holland & Hart representing the advocacy group.
The group describes the initiative as a measure designed to “safeguard fundamental rights relating to reproductive healthcare and personal medical decision-making.” If adopted, it would establish the right to abortion before fetal viability and in medical emergencies, and protect the right to consult privately with healthcare providers about reproductive healthcare.
Under Idaho law, ballots must include a clear and concise as to the effect of a yes or no vote, prepared jointly by the attorney general and secretary of state.
For Proposition One, as the initiative will appear on the ballot, McGrane and Labrador prepared a statement explaining that a yes vote would “create reproductive rights, including a right to abortion before a fetus’ ability to survive and after a fetus’ ability to survive in cases of medical emergency, and provide liability protections for healthcare providers.”
A no vote would “make no change to Idaho’s current law, which protects the life of the unborn while allowing abortion in reported cases of rape or incest, or when necessary to protect the life of the mother," according to the statement.
The plaintiffs argued the statements are confusing and omit critical information, including that Idaho abortion law is criminal prohibition punishable with prison and suspension or revocation of the medical provider’s license.
“The ‘no’ statement recasts the death exception as an exception to protect the life of the mother when the law really only gives the medical provider an exception when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman,” Aiko argued. “Those are not the same thing: protecting the life versus preventing the death.”
The group wants a more straightforward yes/no statement without characterization: “A YES vote means Proposition One will become state law” and “a NO vote means state law regarding abortion will remain unchanged.”
But the justices wondered whether a binary statement would meet statutory requirements.
“What is the purpose of the short statement if all it says is a vote yes means it passes and a vote no means it fails? It seems to me just a waste of time,” said Justice Gregory Moeller.
Justice Colleen Zahn suggested the statement should focus more on the effect of a vote as opposed to whether the vote supports a proposition or not.
The plaintiffs argued the yes/no statement can be binary as it is accompanied by the short and long ballot titles and the funding source statement, which collectively inform the voter of an initiative.
“If the voter were to read the ballot title and then decide whether or not they supported it, wanted to vote yes or no for it, they could look at the yes/no statement and confirm that they were voting the way that they intended to,” Aiko said.
But the state argued it has a duty to explain to voters the impact of their vote.
“The petitioner’s proposed language would reduce the effect statements to little more than ‘Vote yes and the proposition passes, vote no and the law will not change,’” argued Yvonne Dunbar with the Idaho Attorney General’s Office. “It doesn’t tell them anything about what the outcome of their vote may be. That cannot be what the Legislature intended.”
Zahn questioned whether the statements proposed in this case fully explained the outcome of a vote, noting they failed to mention a no vote will leave felony and licensing liability in effect.
James Craig with the Idaho Attorney General’s Office argued it would be impossible to describe the impact a vote would have on all of the state’s comprehensive abortion laws in a short statement.
“If we can’t include every important aspect of the law, then why pick and choose?” Moeller asked.
Craig argued the Legislature expressly authorized the attorney general and secretary of state to prepare the statements, and siding with the advocacy group would effectively substitute their judgment.
Moeller also noted the proposed statement suggests to voters that a yes vote would create rights.
“It’s almost as if it’s a Trojan horse to make people aware, ‘Oh, gee, we shouldn’t be creating rights in Idaho,’” Moeller remarked.
But the state argued the proposition would in fact create statutory reproductive rights, which the state would hold unconstitutional.
The justices said they would issue a decision soon.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.