Politics Muddy Idaho Abortion Debate Alltus To Sponsor Bill, But Other Lawmakers Think Southern Idaho Legislators Have Ulterior Motives

Coeur d’Alene Rep. Jeff Alltus said Thursday he’ll be the main sponsor of anti-abortion legislation proposed this year by the Idaho Family Forum.

“I think we’ve already got about 10 or 12 people in the House who’ve said they’d co-sponsor,” Alltus said. “It’d be a hard bill for anybody to argue against.”

But a quick survey of North Idaho’s legislative delegation found no other co-sponsors. Several North Idaho legislators said they think the Legislature is addressing abortion this year because of the political aspirations of lawmakers from the 2nd Congressional District, and that bothers them.

“If we bring it up, I hope it’s for the proper motivation. I hope it’s for pro-life and not for politics,” Sen. Gordon Crow, R-Hayden, said. “I’m not interested in debating an issue as important and as sensitive as this simply to advance somebody’s political career.”

Rep. Larry Watson, D-Wallace, said, “Why didn’t it come up last year? Why suddenly this year? … I think it was done for one reason, and that’s so (state Sen. Stan) Hawkins can force (House Speaker Mike) Simpson into a vote.”

Hawkins, R-Ucon, and Simpson, R-Blackfoot, both have expressed interest in the soon-to-be-vacant 2nd Congressional District seat. Hawkins has sharply criticized Simpson for voting against a stringent abortion bill in 1990.

Rep. Mark Stubbs, R-Twin Falls, also has announced he’ll run in the 2nd District race. Stubbs is considering co-sponsoring the Idaho Family Forum bill.

Zane Johnston, a lobbyist working with the Family Forum on its legislation, said, “It’s always a good year to talk about abortion. Every year is a good year.”

The Legislature has not addressed the abortion issue since its divisive 1990 session, when it passed House Bill 625 and then-Gov. Cecil Andrus vetoed it.

Alltus said, “Everything in the Idaho Family Forum bill already has been ruled to be constitutional. The bill goes down to the water’s edge and stays. HB625 was like diving in over your head.”

Dennis Mansfield, Family Forum director, maintains that Idaho’s abortion law is unconstitutional. He says his legislation fixes the law so it can be enforced.

The Family Forum bill would add penalties and sanctions against doctors, replace Idaho’s parental notification law with a stronger parental consent law for minors seeking abortions, impose extensive reporting requirements, add requirements dealing with fetal viability and tissue samples and adjust other language.

Rep. John Campbell, R-Sandpoint, said, “I have heard the Idaho Family Forum has worked very hard on this bill and is trying to clean up the muddy waters.”

Sen. Jack Riggs, R-Coeur d’Alene, said, “I would be interested to see how it is different from the current law because the current law on late-term abortion seems to be very adequate because it is quite restrictive right now.”

Riggs, a physician, added, “If you look at trends, the trend has been to far fewer abortions, so I would say certainly that the trend has been in a positive direction. So I’m not sure why we’re spending this much time on this right now.”

The Idaho Women’s Network and Planned Parenthood of Idaho released an analysis of the Family Forum bill on Thursday that said, “In reality, it contains the most restrictive abortion language in use across the country with the intent to increase expense, add delays and involve additional government bureaucracy.”

The analysis said the bill would “drown doctors in a sea of red tape and intimidate women with unnecessary, time-consuming and costly testing and court procedures.” It also charged that the new reporting requirements, which include the names of physicians and reporting agencies, are designed to promote “anti-abortion intimidation and violence.”

Alltus said he’s awaiting an opinion from the Idaho attorney general on the constitutionality of the Family Forum bill. A favorable opinion could help the bill along, he said.

Alltus said he expects to have the opinion as soon as today, and then “I would be getting that (bill) drafted.”

But Rep. June Judd, D-St. Maries, said, “I don’t see why it needs to be rehashed. … We do have restrictions already.”

Rep. Don Pischner, R-Coeur d’Alene, called abortion “a valid issue.” But he said abortion debate shouldn’t become political.

Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said, “My concern is this is being brought up as political posturing by some people running for statewide office. The Senate’s job is to deal with pertinent policy issues. I’ve got school buildings falling down. That’s where I’m at.”

Said Rep. Wayne Meyer, R-Rathdrum: “I don’t think it’s high on people’s agenda. … If it has to be introduced, I hope it’s early and we get it out of the way.”

Sen. Clyde Boatright, R-Rathdrum, agreed. “I hope it comes early and we can get it behind us so we can focus on the legislation we need to manage the state’s affairs the way we’re supposed to.”

Rep. Hilde Kellogg, R-Post Falls, said, “Many people have strong feelings about bringing the bills in. And there are many people who support it. That’s what we’re all about. We listen to what people’s concerns are.”

Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden, said, “I think it’s political. I’m more concerned about budget stabilization bills.”

House Minority Leader Jim Stoicheff, D-Sandpoint, said, “It’s an emotional issue - one of the most emotional. The pros are never going to give up and the antis are never going to give up.” But he said there’s no right or wrong time to debate abortion. “It should be heard again.”

Rep. Chuck Cuddy, D-Orofino, said, “Honestly, I think it’s more politically motivated than anything else at this point.”

Senate Minority Leader Marguerite McLaughlin, D-Orofino, said that whether to debate abortion is “a leadership decision that’s going to have to be made by the party that’s in power. They haven’t asked me.”

, DataTimes