The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that state Attorney General Raúl Labrador and the Idaho Division of Financial Management (DFM) must revise the title of a pro-abortion, ‘reproductive rights’ ballot measure and language in its related fiscal impact statement.
Key Takeaways:
- An Idaho pro-abortion organization is pushing a ballot measure to make abortion — as well as fertility treatments, including IVF, “rights” in the state.
- After a legal challenge, the state Supreme Court has ordered AG Labrador to revise some of the language in the ballot measure to make it less confusing.
- Several terms and concepts in the ballot measure are either undefined or extremely broad.
- Once the title is revised, the group will begin collecting petition signatures to put it on a 2026 ballot.
The Details:
The pro-abortion group Idahoans United for Women and Families is working to secure a ballot measure that would propose legislation to come before the state’s voters in 2026.
The Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act would “secure a person’s right to make their own health care decisions without government interference,” with such ‘health care decisions’ including abortion. If passed, the legislation would be a radical change in the state, which currently protects nearly all preborn human beings from being killed by abortion.
The measure only addresses “individuals,” which may not rule out minors. It also groups together the right to obtain things like miscarriage care and contraception with the right to kill one’s preborn child through abortion.
Often overlooked, the measure would also establish a “right” to fertility treatments — including IVF and other reproductive technologies.
It also mentions that abortion would be legal for any reason up to “fetal viability,” which it defines as “the point in a pregnancy when in the good faith judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case known to the health care professional at the time, the fetus has a significant likelihood of sustained survival outside of the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures”:
Screenshot, Idaho Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Measure (2026)
According to KIVITV, Labrador’s job as Attorney General is to summarize the ballot measure and release a fiscal impact statement meant to inform voters of what impact the measure would have if passed. In this instance, Idahoans United for Women and Families challenged Labrador’s efforts, claiming his ballot information was “omitting key information and including incorrect or contradictory statements.”
The state’s Supreme Court sided in part with the pro-abortion organization, ruling that Labrador’s language in his ballot measure title and the fiscal impact statement was confusing and did not meet legal requirements. It said Labrador must revise the language by June 23 so abortion supporters can start collecting petition signatures in favor of the ballot measure.
Zoom In:
There are several other crucial problems with the measure in addition to its establishment of the “right” to abortion and IVF:
- The measure’s text does not define “extraordinary medical measures,” leaving the abortionist to subjectively decide what he or she considers “extraordinary” as a life-sustaining measure.
- The measure uses the phrase “health care professional” or “health care provider” instead of “physician” — it is puzzling, then, as to the reason why a definition for “physician” is listed under section 6(j) when the term does not exist in the measure itself.
- A “healthcare professional” is defined in the measure as “any person licensed, certified, or registered by the state of Idaho to deliver health care.” This likely means that non-physicians would be allowed to offer abortions under the measure.
- The measure leaves the determination of viability to the “attending” professional — which would certainly include any health care providers earning income by specializing in committing abortions, which seems to be a glaring conflict of interest.
- This calls into question whether someone paid to end a child’s life would be likely to decide that child’s fate with any sort of “good faith judgment.”
Commentary:
Though he was instructed to revise some of his language, Labrador praised the court for keeping much of his ballot language intact while it acknowledged that his task of summarizing the ballot in a short title space was difficult.
“I’m pleased the court upheld the majority of our ballot title work, especially rejecting the unfounded claims of bias and acknowledged the challenging task of summarizing a 1,226-word initiative in just 20 words,” Labrador said in a statement. “We will move swiftly to revise the short title in accordance with the Court’s guidance.”
Melanie Folwell, Executive Director for Idahoans United for Women and Families, also praised the court’s ruling.
“This unanimous ruling is a significant victory for fairness and transparency in Idaho’s elections and a strong defense of our ballot initiative rights,” she stated. “In their ruling, the Court recognized the importance of supplying voters with clear, accurate, and impartial information on their ballots.”
The Bottom Line:
Regardless of how the ballot measure’s title is “clarified,” one thing is already clear: if this measure makes it to the ballot and is passed by voters, human lives will be lost under the illegitimate establishment of a purported “right” to kill.
