Guns and abortion made their appearance during the fourth week of the legislative session and quickly lived up to their reputation as “litmus test” issues for the two major parties.
Both measures were introduced in the House State Affairs Committee Thursday on party line votes.
The abortion bill addresses the use of RU-486 and other chemical abortifacient drugs.
“This is a modest piece of legislation,” said David Ripley, president of Idaho Chooses Life. “It doesn't stop any abortions from taking place or challenge the Supreme Court edict in (Roe vs. Wade). It does create common sense protections for women and girls who are considering chemical abortions.”
When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved RU-486, he said, it recommended the drug only be used during the first 49 days of pregnancy. It also required doctors to confirm that the woman didn't have an ectopic pregnancy – which occurs outside the womb and can endanger the mother – and required a follow-up visit to make sure the fetus was entirely removed.
This legislation essentially enshrines those requirements in state law, Ripley said. It mandates a physical exam prior to prescribing or administering a chemical abortifacient to determine how far along the pregnancy is, as well as a follow-up visit. It also allows mothers, fathers and maternal grandparents to sue a doctor who violates these requirements.
Ripley noted chemical abortions now account for 38 percent of all abortions in Idaho.
Rep. Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, asked if the intent of this legislation is for Idaho to follow FDA guidelines for all prescription drugs.
“My understanding is that the FDA has many rules governing the way prescriptions should be used, and most doctors don't follow them, particularly for pediatrics,” she said. “If the state were to follow every FDA guideline, I'm not sure we'd have a good standard of care in the state.”
“That was the single greatest question we had to wrestle with in developing this legislation,” Ripley said. However, because of various court cases and competing standards of care, it was excluded from the bill.
“What we're (left with) is pretty basic, fundamental treatment of women and girls who are considering using this drug,” he said.
Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll, R-Cottonwood, was instrumental in crafting the bill. Rep. Paulette Jordan, D-Plummer, voted against introducing the measure.
The gun bill was presented by Greg Pruett, president of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance.
“We represent thousands of people, and they've been begging us for years to bring this legislation forward for your consideration,” he said.
The measure gives every law-abiding Idaho citizen the right to carry concealed weapons, including knives and pistols, without a special permit.
Concealed weapons permits would still be available to people who want them or who need them to carry in other states, Pruett said. An enhanced concealed carry permit would also still be required to carry on Idaho's college and university campuses.
“This bill doesn't change the law as far as who can or can't own firearms,” he said. It just adds law-abiding citizens to the list of people – including state and county elected officials – who currently don't need a permit to carry concealed weapons.
“Idaho citizens want to be part of that same exception,” Pruett said. “They feel the Second Amendment is their permit and they shouldn't have to get permission to defend themselves.”
Rep. Elaine Smith, D-Pocatello, asked if any firearms training would be needed before people began carrying weapons.
Pruett said it wouldn't, although most gun-owners in the state are very responsible.
“The real response is, who gets to decide when a law-abiding citizen is trained enough to defend themselves,” he said. “I don't think any of us have the right to tell someone when they're qualified to defend their life.”
Now that the bills have been introduced, both measures will come back for public hearings.
