Thanks for this piece Erica! I'm always trying to be less black and white about issues and I appreciate other people doing the same. But I have a few questions for you below.
Hi Ella! Thank you for taking the time to engage so thoughtfully with my piece. I really appreciate you reaching out with your questions and giving us a chance to better understand each other’s perspectives. That’s the spirit in which I’m offering my answers below. I’m not trying to prove I’m right or convince you to agree with me. I’m just glad we can have an open, thoughtful conversation about a difficult issue.
It's pretty clear you disagree with the church on this issue. How do you justify this disagreement with the church's "long-held stance on abortion" which remains "clear and unchanged"? Do you believe the church's stance an abortion is not inspired? How do you determine when the church is wrong or right about an issue — what is your measure? Simply if you agree with it or not? Or if a lot of people agree with it or not? Or if it supposedly complicates emergency care? Or if it, in your mind, crosses boundaries of church and state?
Actually, I completely agree with the Church’s position on abortion: no to elective abortion, but exceptions for rape, incest, the health and life of the mother, and when the baby isn’t expected to survive after birth. I also believe that the Church’s position is inspired by our belief that we existed as spirits with our own identities even before conception.
Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify this part of my take! If this were almost any other state, I would probably come down very differently. If this were New York or California, I would absolutely vote no. The same goes for Nevada, which received a similar letter from the Church. Even in Utah, where our trigger law includes exceptions for the mother’s health, I would vote no on a similar proposition.
The reason I would vote yes on Prop. 1 in Idaho is that I fully expect the Legislature to amend it. Idaho lawmakers have done this before. After voters approved Medicaid expansion through Prop. 2 in 2018, the Legislature passed bills modifying it in both 2019 and 2025. And importantly, not all of their efforts to repeal Medicaid expansion succeeded. That means the initiative wasn’t for nothing. Idaho voters forced lawmakers to wrestle with an issue they might otherwise have avoided and find a way forward. The resulting laws better reflect a give-and-take between voters and their elected representatives.
When we spoke with Sen. Woodward, Sen. Wintrow, and Rep. Galaviz, all three agreed that if Prop. 1 passes, the Legislature will finally be forced to engage with the issue.
You say having four children of your own made you think differently about risk and how much the government should control medical decisions. Would you have appreciated having the option to abort your little ones? If you were very very sick, or your child was going to die, would you have considered aborting them? Would you consider killing a fully grown child if they are diagnosed with terminal cancer?
All four of my children were born during the Roe era, so technically, I did have that option. Clearly, I didn’t take it.
But I also recognize that pregnancy can involve some incredibly difficult circumstances. If, for example, continuing a pregnancy made it highly likely that I wouldn’t be able to have more children, I would make that a matter of prayer with my husband and possibly my bishop. Or if I had a stroke (a rare but real pregnancy complication) and continuing the pregnancy put me at risk of another stroke, with the possibility of paralysis or death a second stroke could cause, I would again approach that decision prayerfully.
I want to be clear about an important distinction in my mind. There is a real difference between making the heartbreaking decision to deliver a baby early, knowing the baby may not survive, and intentionally ending the baby’s life before delivery. If I ever faced a situation where I felt I needed to end a pregnancy, I would choose delivery. In my personal playbook, that’s not the same as abortion.
As for unborn children with terminal conditions, I don’t think I suggested what you’re implying in my article, and that’s certainly not my position. Again, I agree with the Church’s position that it may be appropriate to consider ending a pregnancy when doctors determine that the baby won’t survive after birth. Personally, I like to think I would choose to continue the pregnancy. But I also recognize what an incredibly traumatic situation that would be for any mother, and I would leave that decision to her, her family, and her doctors. Carrying a baby for months while knowing that the baby is going to die could have a profound impact on a woman’s life.
I also have friends who faced an especially heartbreaking version of this situation. Doctors told them their baby was unlikely to survive the pregnancy, and that delivering early might be their only chance to meet their child alive. If they waited, their baby might die before birth. They chose to deliver early so they could have that precious time with their baby.
As Idaho’s law is currently written, I’m not sure they would have been allowed to make that choice.
You suggest the only reason the church opposed the proposition is because some GOP people reached out to them. Why did you include that part when it has not been verified? You say the church refused to comment so anything beyond their letter requires speculation. Why are you, as a journalist, speculating about your own church?
That’s a fair question, and I don’t have evidence one way or the other. I found Sen. Woodward’s explanation plausible, especially given his experience in the Senate. That’s why I offered it as “one possible explanation,” not “the only reason.”
You say you often vote conservative. What does that mean? I thought I was conservative too, but I guess I'm one of those crazy Idaho Republicans your husband mentioned.
To be fair, I didn’t use the phrase “crazy Idaho Republicans,” and neither did my husband. What I actually wrote was, “Some of their Republicans are super extreme.” But also, in fairness to you, I can see now how tone-deaf that must have sounded. So thank you for giving me the chance to clarify what I meant.
What really troubles me about some of Idaho’s far-right Republicans is their effort to make elected officials accountable to the Republican Party rather than to the people who elected them. In my research, I came across several examples of local and state party officials trying to pressure elected representatives into falling in line with their particular interpretation of Republican values.
To me, that’s an abuse of power. I understand that political parties serve an important purpose in bringing people together around shared principles. But the party itself shouldn’t be the ultimate authority that elected officials answer to. Our Constitution established a system of representative government in which power comes from the people, not from political parties.
That’s the distinction I’m trying to make. My concern isn’t with Idaho Republicans generally, or even with Republicans who hold strong conservative views. It’s with those who seem to believe that loyalty to the party should take precedence over an elected official’s responsibility to represent their constituents.
But you also asked what I mean when I say I often vote conservative. I’ve been a member of the Republican Party for more than two decades. Over the past decade, though, I’ve increasingly felt that the party has moved away from one of my most important personal values: treating all people with dignity and respect. As a result, I’ve become much more thoughtful and selective about how I use my vote.
For example, Rep. Blake Moore is up for reelection in Utah in a few weeks. I’ve voted for him before, and I appreciate his commitment to family values. But I disagree with his position on immigration, which has become an increasingly important issue for me. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I’m seriously considering his Democratic challenger.
On the other hand, if Sen. John Curtis were up for reelection this year, I would likely vote for him in a heartbeat. I appreciate the way he thoughtfully approaches difficult issues and is willing to stand up for what he believes is right for Utah, even when that doesn’t necessarily align with the national Republican Party.
Why do you talk about a majority Republican Congress batting down pro abortion laws like it's surprising or a conspiracy? Wouldn't it be just as unsurprising for Democrats to shut down anti-abortion laws? And if people in Idaho care as much about abortion as you say, why are they electing officials who ignore this issue? If the issue actually mattered to voters, wouldn't politicians change their tune to get elected?
These are such excellent questions! And I think they get right to the heart of what I was trying to say in my piece.
If Idaho’s Republican Legislature had spent the last four years openly discussing abortion, holding robust debates, wrestling with difficult questions, and ultimately voting down every proposed change, I wouldn’t have a problem with where they landed. That’s how representative government is supposed to work.
What troubles me, and what I hoped to highlight in the article, is that those conversations haven’t really been allowed to happen. A very small number of influential people, some of whom aren’t even elected officials, have been able to prevent other elected representatives from fully engaging with the issue.
In 2023, 2024, and 2025, Idaho lawmakers brought forward proposals to change the state’s abortion ban, but none of the proposals to expand abortion access or exceptions received a full committee hearing, much less a vote on the House or Senate floor.
There was one exception: In 2023, lawmakers passed HB 374, clarifying that treating ectopic or molar pregnancies and removing a fetus that had already died did not constitute abortion. But that narrower clarification came only after HB 342 (a broader proposal addressing serious threats to the mother’s health) was denied a hearing.
In 2025, Republican Sen. Jim Woodward and Rep. Mark Sauter introduced SB 1184, which would have added exceptions for serious maternal-health risks and fatal fetal anomalies. But Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog made clear that it wouldn’t get a full hearing. In her words: “I’m OK with introducing this legislation to have it out for public consumption, understanding that we’re not planning on moving forward with the public hearing this year.” It has been tabled ever since. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/03/21/north-idaho-legislators-bring-bill-to-add-health-exceptions-to-states-abortion-ban/
It’s the gatekeeping that I find so frustrating. If Democrats were doing the same thing to prevent debate on bills restricting abortion, I’d feel exactly the same way. To me, this isn’t about which side gets its way. It’s about making sure the people of Idaho are actually represented by the lawmakers they elected.
You say 35% of obstetricians left Idaho because of the abortion law. But this is correlation, not causation — couldn't there be many other reasons why obstetricians are leaving?
Absolutely! I mentioned the study showing that correlation because it came up so often in the conversations and debates I followed. It’s a statistic that carries a lot of weight in Idaho, even though, as you rightly point out, correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2837058
Unfortunately, I just didn’t have the space to explore all the nuances of this issue. It’s a topic that really deserves a deep dive of its own!
I think you would enjoy this podcast with David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses Life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5tM3vDF3kg He makes several compelling points about how the maternal care crisis has been developing for years and predates Idaho’s Defense of Life Act (DOLA). I appreciated hearing that perspective because it adds some important context to the conversation.
You say the law has complicated emergency care. Do you know any patient personally that has run into these complications? You list no one specifically, and source to a pro publica article that references exactly one person. Just one?
Besides the fact that you've just shown that the corruption in Washington DC spreads among all other Red States as well. The Church besides controlling your life, also wants to make your choices for you and how to live it. Certainly seems to have cultish similarities to me. Let Idahoans decide for themselves if you dare.
Thanks for this piece Erica! I'm always trying to be less black and white about issues and I appreciate other people doing the same. But I have a few questions for you below.
Hi Ella! Thank you for taking the time to engage so thoughtfully with my piece. I really appreciate you reaching out with your questions and giving us a chance to better understand each other’s perspectives. That’s the spirit in which I’m offering my answers below. I’m not trying to prove I’m right or convince you to agree with me. I’m just glad we can have an open, thoughtful conversation about a difficult issue.
It's pretty clear you disagree with the church on this issue. How do you justify this disagreement with the church's "long-held stance on abortion" which remains "clear and unchanged"? Do you believe the church's stance an abortion is not inspired? How do you determine when the church is wrong or right about an issue — what is your measure? Simply if you agree with it or not? Or if a lot of people agree with it or not? Or if it supposedly complicates emergency care? Or if it, in your mind, crosses boundaries of church and state?
Actually, I completely agree with the Church’s position on abortion: no to elective abortion, but exceptions for rape, incest, the health and life of the mother, and when the baby isn’t expected to survive after birth. I also believe that the Church’s position is inspired by our belief that we existed as spirits with our own identities even before conception.
Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify this part of my take! If this were almost any other state, I would probably come down very differently. If this were New York or California, I would absolutely vote no. The same goes for Nevada, which received a similar letter from the Church. Even in Utah, where our trigger law includes exceptions for the mother’s health, I would vote no on a similar proposition.
The reason I would vote yes on Prop. 1 in Idaho is that I fully expect the Legislature to amend it. Idaho lawmakers have done this before. After voters approved Medicaid expansion through Prop. 2 in 2018, the Legislature passed bills modifying it in both 2019 and 2025. And importantly, not all of their efforts to repeal Medicaid expansion succeeded. That means the initiative wasn’t for nothing. Idaho voters forced lawmakers to wrestle with an issue they might otherwise have avoided and find a way forward. The resulting laws better reflect a give-and-take between voters and their elected representatives.
When we spoke with Sen. Woodward, Sen. Wintrow, and Rep. Galaviz, all three agreed that if Prop. 1 passes, the Legislature will finally be forced to engage with the issue.
That’s what I’m hoping will happen. Many people in Idaho want to have an open conversation about abortion. As many as two-thirds are not happy with the current law (https://www.boisestate.edu/sps/wp-content/uploads/sites/137/2025/01/10th-Annual-Statewide-Survey-2025.pdf), but so far, a small handful of legislative gatekeepers have prevented even that from happening.
You say having four children of your own made you think differently about risk and how much the government should control medical decisions. Would you have appreciated having the option to abort your little ones? If you were very very sick, or your child was going to die, would you have considered aborting them? Would you consider killing a fully grown child if they are diagnosed with terminal cancer?
All four of my children were born during the Roe era, so technically, I did have that option. Clearly, I didn’t take it.
But I also recognize that pregnancy can involve some incredibly difficult circumstances. If, for example, continuing a pregnancy made it highly likely that I wouldn’t be able to have more children, I would make that a matter of prayer with my husband and possibly my bishop. Or if I had a stroke (a rare but real pregnancy complication) and continuing the pregnancy put me at risk of another stroke, with the possibility of paralysis or death a second stroke could cause, I would again approach that decision prayerfully.
I want to be clear about an important distinction in my mind. There is a real difference between making the heartbreaking decision to deliver a baby early, knowing the baby may not survive, and intentionally ending the baby’s life before delivery. If I ever faced a situation where I felt I needed to end a pregnancy, I would choose delivery. In my personal playbook, that’s not the same as abortion.
As for unborn children with terminal conditions, I don’t think I suggested what you’re implying in my article, and that’s certainly not my position. Again, I agree with the Church’s position that it may be appropriate to consider ending a pregnancy when doctors determine that the baby won’t survive after birth. Personally, I like to think I would choose to continue the pregnancy. But I also recognize what an incredibly traumatic situation that would be for any mother, and I would leave that decision to her, her family, and her doctors. Carrying a baby for months while knowing that the baby is going to die could have a profound impact on a woman’s life.
I also have friends who faced an especially heartbreaking version of this situation. Doctors told them their baby was unlikely to survive the pregnancy, and that delivering early might be their only chance to meet their child alive. If they waited, their baby might die before birth. They chose to deliver early so they could have that precious time with their baby.
As Idaho’s law is currently written, I’m not sure they would have been allowed to make that choice.
You suggest the only reason the church opposed the proposition is because some GOP people reached out to them. Why did you include that part when it has not been verified? You say the church refused to comment so anything beyond their letter requires speculation. Why are you, as a journalist, speculating about your own church?
That’s a fair question, and I don’t have evidence one way or the other. I found Sen. Woodward’s explanation plausible, especially given his experience in the Senate. That’s why I offered it as “one possible explanation,” not “the only reason.”
You say you often vote conservative. What does that mean? I thought I was conservative too, but I guess I'm one of those crazy Idaho Republicans your husband mentioned.
To be fair, I didn’t use the phrase “crazy Idaho Republicans,” and neither did my husband. What I actually wrote was, “Some of their Republicans are super extreme.” But also, in fairness to you, I can see now how tone-deaf that must have sounded. So thank you for giving me the chance to clarify what I meant.
What really troubles me about some of Idaho’s far-right Republicans is their effort to make elected officials accountable to the Republican Party rather than to the people who elected them. In my research, I came across several examples of local and state party officials trying to pressure elected representatives into falling in line with their particular interpretation of Republican values.
For example, the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee in Coeur d’Alene investigated members who signed the petition to put Prop. 1 on the ballot and discussed possible disciplinary action (https://cdapress.com/news/2026/sep/25/kcrcc-addresses-investigation-into-prop-1-signers/).
And in 2024, the District 32 Republican Committee censured state Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen for votes that didn’t align with the state Republican platform. They even tried to prohibit her from identifying as a Republican in campaign materials for five years (https://www.eastidahonews.com/2024/03/legislative-committee-censures-local-lawmakers-accused-of-violating-party-platform/).
To me, that’s an abuse of power. I understand that political parties serve an important purpose in bringing people together around shared principles. But the party itself shouldn’t be the ultimate authority that elected officials answer to. Our Constitution established a system of representative government in which power comes from the people, not from political parties.
That’s the distinction I’m trying to make. My concern isn’t with Idaho Republicans generally, or even with Republicans who hold strong conservative views. It’s with those who seem to believe that loyalty to the party should take precedence over an elected official’s responsibility to represent their constituents.
But you also asked what I mean when I say I often vote conservative. I’ve been a member of the Republican Party for more than two decades. Over the past decade, though, I’ve increasingly felt that the party has moved away from one of my most important personal values: treating all people with dignity and respect. As a result, I’ve become much more thoughtful and selective about how I use my vote.
For example, Rep. Blake Moore is up for reelection in Utah in a few weeks. I’ve voted for him before, and I appreciate his commitment to family values. But I disagree with his position on immigration, which has become an increasingly important issue for me. I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I’m seriously considering his Democratic challenger.
On the other hand, if Sen. John Curtis were up for reelection this year, I would likely vote for him in a heartbeat. I appreciate the way he thoughtfully approaches difficult issues and is willing to stand up for what he believes is right for Utah, even when that doesn’t necessarily align with the national Republican Party.
Why do you talk about a majority Republican Congress batting down pro abortion laws like it's surprising or a conspiracy? Wouldn't it be just as unsurprising for Democrats to shut down anti-abortion laws? And if people in Idaho care as much about abortion as you say, why are they electing officials who ignore this issue? If the issue actually mattered to voters, wouldn't politicians change their tune to get elected?
These are such excellent questions! And I think they get right to the heart of what I was trying to say in my piece.
If Idaho’s Republican Legislature had spent the last four years openly discussing abortion, holding robust debates, wrestling with difficult questions, and ultimately voting down every proposed change, I wouldn’t have a problem with where they landed. That’s how representative government is supposed to work.
What troubles me, and what I hoped to highlight in the article, is that those conversations haven’t really been allowed to happen. A very small number of influential people, some of whom aren’t even elected officials, have been able to prevent other elected representatives from fully engaging with the issue.
In 2023, 2024, and 2025, Idaho lawmakers brought forward proposals to change the state’s abortion ban, but none of the proposals to expand abortion access or exceptions received a full committee hearing, much less a vote on the House or Senate floor.
There was one exception: In 2023, lawmakers passed HB 374, clarifying that treating ectopic or molar pregnancies and removing a fetus that had already died did not constitute abortion. But that narrower clarification came only after HB 342 (a broader proposal addressing serious threats to the mother’s health) was denied a hearing.
Here are the specifics:
In 2023, HB 342 was scheduled for a committee hearing. But the night before, Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon, who isn’t an elected public official, emailed the state party list, urging all Idaho Republicans to oppose the bill and contact their legislators. The next morning, Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, the committee chair, pulled it from the agenda. It never received a hearing. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2023/03/29/idaho-legislators-pass-contentious-bill-that-adds-clarification-language-to-abortion-ban/; https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2023-03-22/hearing-delayed-on-bill-to-clarify-exceptions-in-idaho-abortion-law
In 2024, HB 721 was introduced by Democratic lawmakers but never even made it to a policy committee for consideration. https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2024/legislation/H0721/
In 2025, Republican Sen. Jim Woodward and Rep. Mark Sauter introduced SB 1184, which would have added exceptions for serious maternal-health risks and fatal fetal anomalies. But Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog made clear that it wouldn’t get a full hearing. In her words: “I’m OK with introducing this legislation to have it out for public consumption, understanding that we’re not planning on moving forward with the public hearing this year.” It has been tabled ever since. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/03/21/north-idaho-legislators-bring-bill-to-add-health-exceptions-to-states-abortion-ban/
It’s the gatekeeping that I find so frustrating. If Democrats were doing the same thing to prevent debate on bills restricting abortion, I’d feel exactly the same way. To me, this isn’t about which side gets its way. It’s about making sure the people of Idaho are actually represented by the lawmakers they elected.
You say 35% of obstetricians left Idaho because of the abortion law. But this is correlation, not causation — couldn't there be many other reasons why obstetricians are leaving?
Absolutely! I mentioned the study showing that correlation because it came up so often in the conversations and debates I followed. It’s a statistic that carries a lot of weight in Idaho, even though, as you rightly point out, correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2837058
Unfortunately, I just didn’t have the space to explore all the nuances of this issue. It’s a topic that really deserves a deep dive of its own!
I think you would enjoy this podcast with David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses Life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5tM3vDF3kg He makes several compelling points about how the maternal care crisis has been developing for years and predates Idaho’s Defense of Life Act (DOLA). I appreciated hearing that perspective because it adds some important context to the conversation.
You say the law has complicated emergency care. Do you know any patient personally that has run into these complications? You list no one specifically, and source to a pro publica article that references exactly one person. Just one?
In the first four months of 2024, St. Luke’s airlifted six pregnant patients out of state for emergency care that could have included abortion, compared with just one such transfer in all of 2023, when a court order had temporarily blocked enforcement of the ban. https://www.propublica.org/article/st-lukes-hospital-idaho-abortion-ban; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-1_25-cv-00015/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-1_25-cv-00015-0.pdf
Besides the fact that you've just shown that the corruption in Washington DC spreads among all other Red States as well. The Church besides controlling your life, also wants to make your choices for you and how to live it. Certainly seems to have cultish similarities to me. Let Idahoans decide for themselves if you dare.