
A Post-Roe Idaho | May 6th, 2022
Season 50 Episode 26 | 28m 50sVideo has Closed Captions
A leaked draft opinion indicates the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v Wade.
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, an Idaho trigger law would criminalize nearly all abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Rep. Brent Crane and Rep. Lauren Necochea discuss how Idaho might move forward once an opinion is finalized. Then, Marc Johnson provides a historical perspective on the state’s legislative abortion battles over the past few decades.
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
Idaho Reports is a local public television program presented by IdahoPTV
Major Funding by the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation. Additional Funding by the Friends of Idaho Public Television and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

A Post-Roe Idaho | May 6th, 2022
Season 50 Episode 26 | 28m 50sVideo has Closed Captions
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, an Idaho trigger law would criminalize nearly all abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Rep. Brent Crane and Rep. Lauren Necochea discuss how Idaho might move forward once an opinion is finalized. Then, Marc Johnson provides a historical perspective on the state’s legislative abortion battles over the past few decades.
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
How to Watch Idaho Reports
Idaho Reports is available to stream on pbs.org and the free PBS App, available on iPhone, Apple TV, Android TV, Android smartphones, Amazon Fire TV, Amazon Fire Tablet, Roku, Samsung Smart TV, and Vizio.

Idaho Reports on YouTube
Weekly news and analysis of the policies, people and events at the Idaho legislature.Providing Support for PBS.org
Learn Moreabout PBS online sponsorship>>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PIB TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.
>>> REPUBLICANS HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE.
NEW THIS A LEAKED DRAFT OPINION FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SIGNALED THAT COMING REALITY, WHAT'S NEXT FOR IDAHO?
ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN.
EVEN AFTER A TRIGGER LAW GOES INTO EFFECT, THE CONVERSATION AT THE STATEHOUSE WON'T BE OVER.
I'M MELISSA DAVLIN.
"IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO "IDAHO REPORTS."
THIS WEEK REPRESENTATIVES BRENT CRANE AND LAUREN NECOCHEA JOIN ME TO JUST THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION IN IDAHO BEING CRIMINALIZED, SHOULD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERTURN ROE V. WADE.
THEN MARC JOHNSON ISGIVES US SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE ABORTION DEBATES AND WHAT'S CHANGED IN THE LAST THREE DECADES.
>>> ABOUT THE FIRST, ADD VO GROUP RECLAIM IDAHO TURNED INTO THE LAST SIGNATURES.
COUNTY CLERKS HAS 60 DAYS TO APPROVE THE PETITION SIGNATURES BEFORE THEY GO TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE.
IF ORGANIZERS HAVE GATHERED ENOUGH VALID SIGNATURES T MEASURE WILL GO BEFORE VOTERS ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT.
>> THE IMPORTANT PART OF LIFTING UP THIS REALLY -- VOLUNTEER EFFORT IT TAKES.
PEOPLE DO THIS ON THEIR OWN TIME, THEIR OWN DIME.
THEY GIVE UP FAMILY TIME, WORK TIME, ALL OF IT, TO DO THIS.
IT'S A HUGE, HUGE LIFT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE UNDERSTATED.
THIS IS A VOLUNTEER-DRIVEN EFFORT.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THESE THINGS CAN SUCCEED IN THE STATE LIKE THIS.
>> THE INITIATIVE, DUBBED THE QUALITY EDUCATION ACT, WOULD RAISE AN ADDITIONAL $233 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR K-12 EDUCATION.
SHOULD THE INITIATIVE PASS IT WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES FOR ANYONE MAKING LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR.
>>> ON TUESDAY RETIRED IDAHO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ANNOUNCED THE FORMATION OF A NEW POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, CALLED DEFEND AND PROTECT IDAHO.
THE OFFICIALS SPOKE OUT AGAINST WHAT THEY CALLED POLITICAL EXTREMISM AND CONDEMNED ALL RIGHT GOVERNOR'S JANICE McGEACHIN REANTI-ACTION.
SHE'S RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR IN THE MAY PRIMARY ELECTION.
>> I LOOKED AND WAS WORKING THROUGH THE SUMMER OF 2020 AND I WAS DISGUSTED BY RIOTS AND BURNING AND LOOTING OF OUR CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, FROM KENOSHA TO PORTLAND.
AND I WOULD SAY ANYBODY WHO WAS OFFENDED BY THAT CONDUCT HAS TO BE ALSO OFFENDED BY EXTREMISM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL REALM.
AND WE CANNOT STAND FOR OR CONDONE OR EVEN ALLOW IN OUR POLITICS VIOLENT, YOU KNOW, INTIMIDATION TACTICS, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING PRIMARILY HERE IN IDAHO AT THIS POINT.
AND I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO STAND UP AND SAY THAT'S WRONG AND I CAN'T CONDONE IT.
>> JANICE McGEACHIN HAS SUPPORTED AFPAC, WHERE ATTENDEES VOICE SUPPORT FOR PUTIN.
SHE'S GOTTEN SUPPORT FROM WHITE SUPREMACIST.
SHE HAS ATTACKED LEADERS FROM THE FRINGE AREA, AMMON BUNDY WHO HAS SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN HIS DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW.
SHE MOBILIZED OR CAUSED BROUGHT SUPPORT TO THE PROTEST AT ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL THAT SHUT IT DOWN AND MADE EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVERT TO OTHER HOSPITALS.
SHE HAS EMPLOYED SOMEBODY WHO HAS TALKED ABOUT SHOOTING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
AND SHE COURTS PEOPLE WHO USE INTIMIDATION AND VIOLENCE TO TERRORIZE OTHER PEOPLE, INCLUDING 3%ERS.
IDAHO DESERVES LAW-ABIDING LEADERS, NOT AGREESIVE LEADERS.
>> HER CAMPAIGN DID NOT RESPOND TO COMMENT, THOUGH SHE HAS PREVIOUSLY DEFENDED HER SPEECH SAYING EARLIER THIS YEAR, I DO NOT AND HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED IDENTITY POLITICS OR OTHER JIM IN AER TO VIEWS THAT ONLY SEEK TO DIVIDE US AND NOT UNITE US, END QUOTE.
THE PRIMARY ELECTION IS MAY 17th.
>>> ON MONDAY NIGHT POLITICO PLUSHED A LEAKED DRAFLT OF A U.S. SUPREME COURT OPINION THAT WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE, REVEALING THAT THE COURT IS POISED TO STRIKE DOWN THE DECISION THAT GUARANTEED ABORTION ACCESS.
SHOULD THE COURT OVERTURN ROE V. WADE, IDAHO DOES HAVE A TRIGGER LAW IN PLACE THAT WOULD CRIMINALIZE NEARLY ALL ABORTIONS WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE, INCEST, AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.
THAT STATUTE WAS WRITTEN TO GO INTO EFFECT IF THE COURTS DO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE, AND WHILE THE COURT HASN'T YET PUBLISHED ITS FINAL OPINION, IT DID CONFIRM THAT THE LEAKED DRAFT WAS AUTHENTIC.
SO HOW WILL THIS PENDING DECISION SHAPE CONVERSATIONS IN THE STATEHOUSE OVER THE COMING YEARS?
REPRESENTATIVE BRENT CRANE, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, AND REPRESENTATIVE LAUREN NECOCHEA, CHAIR OF THE IDAHO DEMOCRATIC PARTY, JOINED ME FRIDAY TO DISCUSS HOW IDAHO MIGHT MOVE FORWARD ONCE AN OPINION IS FINNIZED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH BOTH SO MUCH FOR UGTODAY.
I WANTED TO START -- FOR JOINING US TODAY.
I WANTED TO START WITH YOUR REACTIONS TO THE LEAKED DRAFT.
>> I'M FRUSTRATED.
DISAPPOINTED.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO KEEP THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES QUIETS BEFORE THEY MAKE THE DECISION.
AND I THINK THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS IF IT'S A STWROARL DECISION, LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE RIOTS, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE UNREST PRIOR A DECISION.
THAT THE DECISION IS MADE AND THEN THE PUBLIC CAN REACT TO IT.
SO ALLOWING THIS TO GO ON FOR A LENGTH OF TIME IS BECOMING MORE PROBLEMATIC AND I ACTUALLY THINK YOU'LL SEE THE COURT EXPEDITE THEIR TIMELINE AND MAKE A DECISION IN ORDER THAT THERE'S CERTAINLY PROVIDED NOT ONLY TO THE CITIZENS BUT ALSO TO THE STATES THAT HAVE TO REACT TO THIS SHOULD IT BE OVERTURNED.
>> THERE'S THE REACTION TO THE LEAK ITSELF AND THEN THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE OPINION, THAT IT IS GOING TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THE POTENTIAL OVERTURN?
>> WELL, IT'S SO NO SECRET THAT I AM PRO-LIFE, EU6789.
I'M ANTIABORTION.
THIS IS AN AREA OF LAW I WORK IN AND SPEND A LOT OF TIME WORKING IN.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK OVER MY RECORD, YOU'LL SEE I'VE PASSED OR WORKED ON 17 PIECES OF LEGISLATION WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE.
SO FOR A PRO-LIFE LAWMAKER, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT.
AND WE WOULD CONSIDER IT A WIN.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO CONVINCE THE COURT FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
SO I'M -- I'M VERY EXCITED.
>> I WOULD ASK YOU THE SAME THING.
>> AT A MUCH DIFFERENT REACTION.
I WAS DEVASTATED TO HEAR THIS NEWS.
THIS IS A RIGHT THAT WE'VE HAD IN PLACE FOR ALL OF OUR LIFETIMES HERE SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE.
AND YOU KNOW, FOR THESE PAST FIVE DECADES, ROE V. WADE HAS PROTECTED IDAHOANS REGARDLESS OF WHAT EXTREME UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS WERE PROPOSED OR ENACCOUNT AD IN IDAHO.
-- ENACCOUNTED IN IDAHO AND THOSE PROTECTIONS NOW GO AWAY AND I THINK WE FACE A GRIM RERAT -- REALITY.
>> THIS IS THE RESULT OF DECADES OF WORK FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET THIS OVERTURNED.
SO YOU SAY YOU'RE DEVASTATED.
WERE YOU SURPRISED, THOUGH?
>> YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS COMING, IT STILL FELT LIKE A SHOCK.
BECAUSE THIS IS A RIGHT THAT WE'VE ALL HAD FOR SO LONG AND IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE OUR LIVES WITHOUT IT.
AND BECAUSE THE MEASURES THAT IDAHOANS ARE TALKING ABOUT AND PASSING HAVE BECOME EVER MORE EXTREME.
YOU KNOW, 10 YEARS AGO A PROPOSAL THAT WOULD HAVE MANDATED TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUNDS WAS DEEMED TOO EXTREME.
AND THEN WE JUST PASSED A BILL THAT HAD THAT PROVISION AS WELL AS THESE CASH BOUNTIES FOR RAPIST'S RELATIVES, THE VICTIM PURSUES AN ABORTION AND THESE THINGS ARE JUST IN CONFLICT WITH THE VALUES THAT IDAHOANS HOLD.
>> I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE SHIFTING VIEWS OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS FROM WHERE YOU'RE SITTING.
I COVERED THAT 2012 BILL THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE TRANSADVANTAGIAL ULTRASOUNDS.
AND AT THE TIME THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS THOUGHT THAT WAS A STEP TOO FAR.
WE'RE IN A VERY DIFFERENT SPOT NOW.
WE HAVE VERY DIFFERENT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS.
DO YOU THINK IN A YOUR COLLEAGUES ARE GETTING TO A PLACE WHERE THEY WANT TO PUNISH WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE PHYSICIANS, WHICH IS WHAT IS IN IN THE TRIGGER LAW RIGHT NOW.
>>> THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THE CAUCUS IS A PRO-LIFE CAUCUS.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'VE SHIFTED.
THAT THEY WANT TO PUNISH A WOMAN.
THE LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN PASSED I BELIEVE IN 2021 DEALT WITH PUNISHING THE DOCTOR FOR PERFORMING THE ABORTION AND THAT'S WHERE THE CAUCUS WOULD BE AT TODAY.
NOW, BEAR IN MIND, WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY SEE 30 NEW INDIVIDUALS COMING INTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NEXT YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THOSE 30 INDIVIDUALS ARE GOING TO, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
AND IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE THAT THE IMPACT THAT THIS DECISION WILL HAVE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND WHERE THEY WILL BE.
SO YOU KNOW, I COULD TELL YOU PAST CAUCUSES THROUGH -- UP THROUGH THIS YEAR COMING FORWARD, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT WHAT I ANTICIPATE IS THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF PUNISHING THE WOMAN IF SHE CHOSE TO GET AN ABORTION.
WE WOULD PUNISH THE DOCTOR BECAUSE HE'S PERFORMING THE ABORTION.
>> THERE ARE CERTAINLY OTHER POTENTIAL PROPOSALS THAT YOU MIGHT SEE.
IF YOU'RE STILL HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN OR WHEREVER YOU ARE IN THE LEGISLATURE.
DO YOU THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE EFFORTS TO STOP WOMEN FROM TRAVELING TO OTHER STATES TO SEEK ABORTIONS?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT YOU -- WELL, A LEGISLATOR CAN BRING ANY IDEA, RIGHT?
SO DO I THINK THAT A LEGISLATOR MIGHT BRING THAT?
THEY CERTAINLY COULD.
DO I THINK THAT THAT IDEA WOULD GET A HEARING OR GET PASSED?
NO, I DO NOT.
>> WOULD YOU HEAR THAT AS STATE AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN?
>> NO, I WOULD NOT, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND IF THEY'RE LEGAL IN OREGON AND A WOMAN IN IDAHO CHOOSESES TO TRAVEL TO OREGON, THAT'S A DECISION SHE'S MAKING TO TRAVEL TO OREGON.
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS STEPPING IN AND RESTRICTING PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO TRAVEL, THAT'S A SCARY PLACE TO BE.
>> HOW ABOUT ABORTION PILLS VIA MAIL OR IUDS OR PLANNED -- WOULD YOU -- >> THERE ARE SOME HEALTH CONCERNS ACTUALLY WITH THE MEDICATION THAT -- THEY MAIL THE MEDICATION TO THE WOMAN.
SHE TAKES THEM.
THEY CAN SOMETIMES HAVE A REACTION TO THAT.
SO FROM A HEALTH CONCERNS PERSPECTIVE, YES, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT -- OR LOOK AT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD DEAL WITH THOSE PRESCRIBING OF THOSE MEDICATIONS.
>> HOW ABOUT UID AND PLAN B?
>> PLAN B I PROBABLY WOULD.
IUDs I'M NOT CERTAIN.
>> WHAT ARE -- WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT FOR THE COMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION?
>> YEAH.
SO MANY THINGS.
BECAUSE WE SEE THE TRAJECTORY IS JUST TOWARDS MORE AND MORE EXTREME AND INVASIVE PROPOSALS.
YOU KNOW, WE HAD TWO REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS SPONSOR A BILL THAT WOULD PUT A WOMAN ON MURDER -- ON TRIAL FOR MURDER IF SHE HAD AN ABORTION.
AND YOU KNOW THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THEY WHISPERED TO EACH OTHER THAT THEY BELIEVED IT.
THEY PUT THEIR NAMES ON A BILL AND PUT IT OUT THERE.
SO I'M DISTURBED ABOUT THAT TREND.
I'M DISTURBED THAT WE WOULD EVEN TALK ABOUT WHETHER AN IUD SHOULD BE LEGAL OR NOT.
IN IDAHO THAT'S A -- EFFECTIVE WELL-USED FORM OF FAMILY PLANNING.
AND THESE THINGS HAVE TO REMAIN ACCESSIBLE.
AND YOU KNOW, IT WAS A HARD DAY WHEN WE HAD DEBATED THAT BILL ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
THE MOST EXTREME BILL I'VE SEEN AROUND ABORTION.
AND NOT ONE HOUR BEFORE THE HOUSE KILLED A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED WOMEN TO FULFILL -- FULFILL THEIR FAMILY PLANNING PRESCRIPTIONS SIX MONTHS AFTER A TIME.
THIS WOULD HELP RURAL WOMEN, ANYONE WHO HAS A HARD TIME GETTING TO A PHARMACY TO FILL OUT PRESCRIPTION.
MORE STABLE ACCESS TO HER FAMILY PLANNING WHICH PREVENTS UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES.
SO WHAT I'M SEEING IS A LEGISLATURE THAT WON'T DO ANYTHING TOO HELP PEOPLE WITH FAMILY -- TO HELP PEOPLE WITH FAMILY PLANNING OR UNINTENDED PREGNANCY, BUT IS STARTING TO TALK ABOUT HARSH -- JUST APPALLING PUNISHMENTS WITH THE IDEA OF TRYING A WOMAN FOR MURDER.
AND THAT'S VERY DISTURBING.
SO I -- I'M VERY FEARFUL OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE COMING YEARS WITHOUT THE FEDERAL PROTECTIONS OF ROE V. WADE.
>> AND TO BE CLEAR, THE LEGISLATION IN PASSED -- IT PASSED BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE PUNISHED THE WOMAN FOR SEEKING AN ABORTION.
THOSE HAVE NEVER GOT AN HEARING, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE.
>> AND A LAWMAKERS CAN PROPOSE ANYTHING THEY WANT.
I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT AND NATE.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT TALKED TO ME AND I TOLD HER, I SAID IN MY COMMITTEE I'M NOT GOING TO HEAR THAT BILL THAT PUTS A WOMAN ON TRIAL FOR MURDER.
IF YOU'LL TAKE THAT PORTION OF THE BILL OUT, IF YOU'LL PUT THE DOCTOR ON TRIAL FOR MURDER, WHICH TRUES UP EXACTLY WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN IDAHO STATUTES, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT HAVING A HEARING ON YOUR BILL.
SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE LAUREN IS AT AND THE CONCERNS THAT SHE HAS.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL REASONABLE PEOPLE IN THE% LEGISLATURE THAT ARE GOING TO ENSURE THAT EXTREME BILLS LIKE THAT ARE NOT GOING TO GET A HEARING.
>> AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS' PLAN TO FIGHT THIS LEGISLATIVELY.
VOTERS FOR DECADES NOW HAVE OVERWHELMINGLY SENT ANTI-ABORTION LAWMAKERS TO THE STATEHOUSE, ELECTED THEM TO EXECUTIVE POSITIONS.
HOW DO YOU PLAN TO FIGHT THIS LEGISLATIVELY WHEN THIS IS SEEMINGLY WHAT IDAHO VOTERS WANT?
>> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE IF THE -- SEE -- I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A CHANGE.
AND I THINK WE'LL SEE THIS IMPACT POLITICAL OUTCOMES JUST AS WE DID IN 1990 WHEN THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE PASSED A HARSH ABORTION BAN.
GOVERNOR ANDRUS REET VOD IT -- VETOED IT AND DEMOCRATS WERE VOTED INTO OFFICE.
IT'S ONE THING TO SEND AN ANTI-ABORTION LAWMAKER WHO'S GOING TO PASS THESE BILLS TO THE LEGISLATURE WHEN IT DOESN'T MATTER.
ROE V. WADE IS GOING TO PROTECT US FROM THE BILLS BEING IMPLEMENTED.
ANOTHER THING WHAT WE HAVE THE GRIM REALITY OF YOU KNOW, A PATIENT FACING A MISCARRIAGE, THEN NOW UNDER SUSPICION AND POTENTIALLY FINDING HERSELF IN -- UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE POLICE, YOU KNOW.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN COUNTRIES WHERE ABORTION IS BANNED.
THAT'S THE GRIM REALITY THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD TO LIVE, WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE LAWS BECAUSE OF ROE V. WADE.
AND YOU KNOW, I'M HARTPED TO HEAR THE REPRESENTATIVE SAY -- HEARTENED TO SAY THE REPRESENTATIVE SAY THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO PURSUE THAT WOULD TRAVEL ACROSS STATE LINES, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S SO ABSURD ABOUT THIS BILL, BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE MEANS TO TRAVEL TO GET THIS LEGAL PROCEDURE ACROSS THE BORDER, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
THEY WON'T BE IMPACTED.
IT WILL BE LOW-INCOME PEOPLE, PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE THE SAME SOCIAL NETWORKS, WHO DRIVE THEM ACROSS THE STATE LINES, WHO CAN LEND THEM THE MONEY THAT THEY NEED.
AND SO WE HAVE -- IT'S AN UNJUST LAW WHEN IT ONLY APPLIES TO SOME PEOPLE AND NOT TO WEALTHY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE MEANS TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO GET THIS CARE.
>> I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT FOR THESE WOMEN AND FAMILIES WHO ARE NOW GOING TO BE FACING THE PROSPECT OF CARRYING AN% UNPLANNED PREGNANCY TO TERM.
HAVE THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS IN EITHER THE GET SETTING OR IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR ABOUT -- GOVERNMENT SETTING OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR BOOSTING SOCIAL -- TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE SUPPORTED THROUGHOUT THE PREGNANCY?
>> I CAN TELL YOU AS FAR AS A CAUCUS HAVE WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION, NO.
NOT AS UNENTIRE CAUCUS.
HAVE INDIVIDUAL LAWMAKERS STARTED HAVING THIS CONVERSATION?
ABSOLUTELY WE HAVE.
AND THERE ARE GREAT RESOURCES OUT THERE.
STANTON HEALTHCARE IS ONE THAT PROVIDES LIFE AFFIRMING CARE HERE IN THE TREASURE VALLEY.
IN MY TOWN IT'S LIFELINE CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTER.
THESE ARE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HELP COME ALONGSIDE WOMEN.
I GOT AN EMAIL FROM ONE OF THEM THIS WEEK THAT SAID, IN 20 YEARS OF RUNNING THIS ORGANIZATION, LIFELINE, I'VE NEVER HAD ONE MOTHER COME BACK AND REGRET HER DECISION TO KEEP HER CHILD.
BUT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THOSE -- THERE IS GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL BURDENS PLACED UPON THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND SO ALSO THE STATE IS GOING TO HAVE A ROLE IN COMING ALONGSIDE AND HELPING THOSE INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS OUT OR LOOKING AT STATE ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN HELP ASSIST THESE WOMEN.
>> ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS YOU MENTIONED ARE FROM THE TREASURE VALLEY AND THERE ARE LOTS OF RESOURCES HERE IN AND AROUND BOISE AND NAPA.
WHAT ABOUT MOTHERS IN PIERCE OR AFFINO OR BEAR LAKE WHO DON'T HAVE EASY ACCESS TO A METROPOLITAN CENTER?
>> I MENTIONED JUST THE ONES THAT I KNOW OF IN THE TREASURE VALLEY.
THERE'S ONES ALL ACROSS THE STATE OF IDAHO.
ONE IN MOSCOW, RELIANCE CARE CENTER.
THERE'S A NUMBER ACROSS THE STATE.
I DON'T KNOW EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY, AND I THINK THAT ALSO -- I DO KNOW SOME OF THEM, BUT I ALSO THINK THEY'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THE INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS SPRING UP ACROSS THE STATE TO HELP THESE WOMEN OUT.
>> WHAT IS THE STATE ROLE IN YOURMAN IN YOUR -- YOUR 5 SOLVE CAL WORLD VIEW, WHAT'S YOUR -- >> IF THE STATE LAW SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO CARRY THAT CHILD TO FULL TERM AND THERE IS GOING TO BE A BURDEN, A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THAT MOTHER, THEN THE STATE CAN LOOK AT -- INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE OR AGENCY THAT IS WE HAVE IN PLACE.
-- AGENCIES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE AND PROVIDE CARE FOR THERE, WHETHER THAT'S FORMULA AND DIAPERS AND HEALTHCARE, HOUSING.
THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME OF THAT.
>> YOU KNOW, THESE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT -- THESE ARE PROPOSALS THAT I KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BEFORE POTENTIAL ROE V. WADE OVERTURNED WITH INCREASED SOCIAL SERVICES, FUNDING, AND MORE OF AN INTENTION ON HOUSING.
ARE WE GOING TO SEE PROPOSALS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS ALONG THOSE LINES NEXT YEAR?
>> WE'LL CERTAINLY BE TAKING A LOOK AT IT.
THESE ARE THINGS WE'VE ALWAYS SUPPORTED AS DEMOCRATS.
WE'VE ALWAYS SUPPORTED INVESTIGATING IN -- INVESTING IN AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE, INVESTING IN HEALTH INSURANCE SO PEOPLE CAN GET ACCESS FAMILY PLANNING THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PLAN A HEALTHY PREGNANCY AND THEN HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE POSTPARTUM SO THEY CAN STAY HEALTHY AND YOU KNOW, GET TREATMENT IF THEY HAVE DEPRESSION, OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT IMPACT THE HEALTH OF THE FAMILY.
WE HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED THOSE SUPPORTS FOR HEALTHY FAMILIES.
IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE REPUBLICAN SUPERMAJORITY HAS VOTED AGAINST MANY OF THESE THINGS.
MEDICAID EXPANSION WOULD HAVE AGAIN A GREAT -- WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT THING FOR HEALTHY PREGNANCIES.
BUT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE BALLOT INITIATIVE PROCESS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN SUPERMAJORITY BLOCKED IT.
WE BARELY CAN PASS INVESTMENTS IN CHILD CARE.
IT TAKES THE DEMOCRATS TO GET THOSE ACROSS THE LINE.
THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT HAVE A GOOD TRACK IN RECORD IN SUPPORTING THESE THINGS THAT HELP FAMILIES SUCCEED AND IT'S -- IT'S HIGH TIME THAT THAT CHANGES.
>> AND I WANTED TO GET YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT.
DOES THE OVERTURN OF ROE V. WADE, WOULD IT CHANGE THE SERVICES AROUND THOSE SERVICES?
>> IT WILL CHANGE THE CONVERSATION.
ABSOLUTELY.
NOW, FROM A REPUBLICAN PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD PREFER THAT THAT'S DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WITH SOME OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT I'VE MENTIONED.
SO ALWAYS REPUBLICANS ARE LOOKING TOWARDS -- IS THERE A PRIVATE SOLUTION RATHER THAN A GOVERNMENT SOLUTION.
SO WE WILL LOOK TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO COME ALONG WITH THOSE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS.
MIGHT THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO PLAY A ROLE?
YEAH, THEY MIGHT HAVE TO.
AND IF SO, I THINK YOU'LL SEE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURES STAND TALL AND DO THE RIGHT THING.
>> REPRESENT CRANE, THANK YOU SOATH INTOACH FOR JOINING US -- THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> MONDAY'S NEWS OF THE LEAKED SUPREME COURT DRAFT PROMPTED PROTESTS ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON IN BOISE.
MEANWHILE, IDAHO REPUBLICAN LEADERS CONDEMNED THE LEAK OF THE DRAFT WHILE BRAISING THE COURT FOR THE PENDING DECISION.
IDAHO REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIRMAN TOM LUNA SAID, QUOTE, ALTHOUGH THIS OPINION IS ONLY A DRAFT, IF IT STANDS, IT WILL VALIDATE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ITS PRO-LIFE ALLIES IN THEIR DECADES-LONG STRUGGLE TO PROVE THAT ROE V. WADE AND CASEY V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE THE DAY >>> PROTESTS AND FIGHTS OVER IDAHO.
IN 1990 THE LEGISLATURE DREW NATIONAL ATTENTION AND THREATENED BOYCOTTS OF IDAHO POTATOES WITH A HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE ABORTION BILL, SIMILAR TO THE TRIGGER LAW IDAHO RECENTLY PASSED.
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THAT BILL, BUT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR CECIL ANDRUS ULTIMATELY VETOED IT.
>> HOUSE BILL 6 TWENLTS 5 DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY FLEXIBILITY FOR A WOMAN AND HER FAMILY IN THESE VERY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE BILL IS DRAWN SO NARROWLY THAT IT WOULD PUNTIVELY AND WITHOUT COMPASSION FURTHER HARM AN IDAHO WOMAN WHO MAY FIND HERSELF IN THE HORRIBLE UNTHINKABLE POSITION OF CONFRONTING A PREGNANCY THAT RESULTED FROM RAPE OR INSESSION.
-- INCEST.
NOW, WHEN ALL OF THE EMOTION AND RHETORIC IS SET ASIDE AND ISSUES ARE EXAMINED IN THE COLD GLARE OF HARD CASES, THESE RESTRICTIONS FAILED THE TEST OF REASONABLENESS AND COMPASSION.
I BELIEVE AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN MAKE OUR OWN JUDGMENTS ON THIS TERRIBLE IMPORTANT ISSUE WITHOUT OUTSIDE PRESSURE, OUTSIDE INFLUENCE, AND THREATS.
WHEN I CONSIDER WHAT IS RIGHT FOR IDAHO, I MUST CONSIDER MY OWN JUICE AND THE NEEDS -- OWN VIEWS AND THE NEEDS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.
THIS BILL SATISFIES NEITHER.
>> JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THAT VETO IS MARC JOHNSON, FORMER HOST OF "IDAHO REPORTS" BEFORE BECOMING A TOP ATE TO GOVERNOR AN DRUG.
MARK -- AIDE TO GOVERNOR ANDRUS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PARALLELS BETWEEN THE DEBATE THAT WE HEARD IN 1990 AND THE DEBATING WE'VE SEEN IN THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK THERE ARE SOME STRIKING PARALLELS BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED 32 YEARS AGO WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND REALLY -- WHAT AT THE TIME WAS REALLY THOUGHT OF AS A RADICAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
AND WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE MORE RECENTLY.
THE DIFFERENCE OF COURSE IS CECIL ANDRUS VIET -- VETOED THE BILL IN 1990.
GOVERNOR LITTLE SIGNED THE BILL WITH MANY OF THE SAME RESERVATIONS, ORNICALLY, THAT GOVERNOR OOP IRONICALLY, THAT GOVERNOR ANDRUS ARTICULATED IN 1990.
>> AS WE WERE LISTENING TO GOVERNOR ANDRUS' SPEECH THAT WE JUST AIRED, A LOT OF THOSE SAME RESERVATIONS AS YOU SAID -- ALMOST VERBATIM IN GOVERNOR LITTLE'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER.
>> WELL, YEAH.
YOU KNOW, THE LEGISLATION IN 1990 WAS EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE.
IT WAS BILLED BY ITS PROPONENTS AS PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS IN CASES OF RAPE AND INCEST AND THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER.
BUT IN REALITY, THOSE EXCEPTIONS WERE SO TIGHTLY DRAWN THAT THEY WERE REALLY UNWORKABLE.
THEY WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN PRACTICALLY APPLICABLE.
IF, FOR EXAMPLE, A RAPE VICTIM WAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ABORTION UNDER THAT LEGISLATION, THE RAPE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN REPORTED WITHIN 7 DAYS.
THE INCEST EXCEPTION ONLY APPLIED TO A YOUNG WOMAN UNDER THE AGE OF 18.
SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THEY WERE EXCEPTIONS THAT REALLY HAD NO PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
>> BUT -- >> AND THIS RECENTLY LEGISLATION STRIKES ME AS BEING EVEN MORE RADICAL IN MANY WAYS IN TERMS OF RESTRICTING ACCESS TO -- FOR A LONG, LONG TIME I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN IDAHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WERE REASONABLE EXCEPTIONS THAT ALLOWED FOR AN ABORTION TO TAKE PLACE.
>> A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN, THOUGH.
THERE ARE FEWER DEMOCRATS IN THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE.
>> RIGHT.
>> HASN'T BEEN A DEMOCRAT IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE SINCE GOVERNOR AN DRUG.
AND THERE ARE FEWER SELF-DESCRIBED PROFIVE DEMOCRATS.
-- PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS.
YOU WROTE THIS WEEK THAT REPUBLICANS MAY SEE A BACKLASH IN A PIECE APPEARED IN THE "WASHINGTON POST."
BUT ARE THEY GONNA SEE THAT BACKLASH IN VERY RED STATES LIKE IDAHO?
>> I THINK THE JURY IS OUT TO THAT.
BUT I WOULD -- ON THAT.
BUT I WOULD NOT RULE IT OUT.
AND FOR A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC REASONS.
ONE THING, IF THE SUPREME COURT FOLLOWS THROUGH, AS THE LEAKED OPINION OF JUSTICE ALITO SEEMS TO INDICATE IT WILL, AND WIPES ROE VS. WADE OFF THE BOOKS, WHICH HAS BEEN THE LAW OF THE LAND FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, I DO THINK THE MOMENTUM IN THIS DEBATE WILL SHIFT FROM THE PRO-LIFE FORCES THAT HAVE GENERALLY REWARDED REPUBLICANS OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS ON THIS ISSUE, TO -- A NEW AGGRIEVED PARTY IN THE COUNTRY, IF YOU WILL.
PEOPLE WHO COME OF AGE IN THE UNITED STATES WHILE THAT WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND SUDDENLY IT'S BEEN RIPPED AWAY FROM THEM IN MANY, MANY STATES.
SO I THINK YOU'LL SEE A MOMENTUM SHIFT ON THE POLITICS SIDE OF IT.
I ALSO THINK YOU'LL SEE FOR MAYBE THE FIRST TIME SINCE ROE VS. WADE INDIVIDUAL STATES, INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS, INDIVIDUAL GOVERNORS WILL HAVE TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE REALITY OF THE POLICY THAT THEY'VE PUT IN PLACE AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE LIVES OF MANY, MANY WOMEN IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND THAT'S A NEW PHENOMENON.
FOR A LONG TIME TALKING ABOUT ANTI-ABORTION LEGISLATION WAS A LARGELY A THEORETICAL EXERCISES% IT'S GOING TO BECOME VERY, VERY REAL FOR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
>> IT'S GOING TO BECOME REAL AND NOT A HYPOTHETICAL.
BUT THE CONSEQUENCES -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THESE POLICIES FOR SEVERAL YEARS, IN SOME CASES.
>> WELL, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE NO PERFECT POLITICAL ANALOGIES, BUT IN 1990, OBVIOUSLY GOVERNOR ANDRUS WAS UP FOR RE-ELECTION THAT YEAR.
THOSE OF US WHO WORK FOR HIM I THINK WERE MORE CONCERNED THAN HE WAS ABOUT THE POLITICAL PUSHBACK THAT MIGHT COME FROM A VETO.
BUT AS I NOTED IN THE PIECE IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" THIS WEEK, WE DID POLLING RIGHT AFTER THAT VETO AND IT -- REALLY SURPRISED ALL OF US.
THAT THERE WAS STRONG SUPPORT IN IDAHO FOR THAT VETO.
WHEN HE TOOK THE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHY HE HAD TAKEN THE ACTION HE DID, THE CONSEQUENCES FOR RE -- PEOPLE IN THE STATE, PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THE TRADEOFFS AND THEY BROADLY SUPPORTED WHAT HE'D DONE.
>> WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE.
WE'RE OUT OF TIME.
THANK YOU, SO MUCH FOR JOINING US AND THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.
WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STAYED OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC
Support for PBS provided by:
Idaho Reports is a local public television program presented by IdahoPTV
Major Funding by the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation. Additional Funding by the Friends of Idaho Public Television and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.