Idaho is rightly considered to be a pro-life state. In 2020, Idaho passed a trigger ban, which went into effect when the Dobbs decision was handed down, allowing the state to quickly outlaw abortion except in the cases of the life of the mother, and reported rape and incest within the first three months of pregnancy.[i] In 2024, Idaho became the first state to prohibit the trafficking of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion.[ii] Additionally, pre-Roe pro-life legislation included a heartbeat bill, a partial-birth abortion ban, parental involvement, and informed consent laws. But Idaho’s pro-life reputation is being threatened by Idahoans United for Women and Families, a misnomer if there ever was one, which is trying to place an initiative on the November 2026 ballot, which would reimpose Roe v. Wade.

​​

​

In Idaho, the state constitution cannot be amended through an initiative. An initiative can only effect statutory change, which only requires 50% of the vote to pass. Signature collection began in late June 2025. Even a statutory change will impose abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The language of the initiative mirrors that used in other states.

​​

​

The short title reads,

 

Idaho Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Measure (2026)

"Every person has the right to reproductive freedom and privacy, which entails the right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: pregnancy; contraception; fertility treatment; prenatal and postpartum care; childbirth; continuing one’s own pregnancy; miscarriage care; and, abortion care."[iii]

​​

​

Abortion advocates are doing what they do best: hiding abortion behind other issues to obfuscate what this initiative really does. No one opposes reproductive freedom. But once a woman is pregnant, reproduction has occurred. The only question is whether we allow the destruction of the child that has been produced. Of all the issues listed above, abortion is the only issue that is legally prohibited. None of the other issues listed above are in legal jeopardy. In fact, in Idaho, insurance companies are required by law to cover six months of contraception.[iv] Conflating abortion with these other women’s health issues goes to show how extreme and deceitful abortion advocates are.

​​

​

It becomes clear how horrible this initiative is when one delves into the actual language. If this initiative passes, it will make it next to impossible for the state to even regulate abortion.

 

1b. A person’s voluntary exercise of their right to reproductive freedom and privacy and privacy [sic] shall not be infringed, burdened, or prohibited by the state, directly or indirectly, in any way; . . . unless the state action is justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. (emphasis added)

 

1c. For purposes of this section, the state’s compelling interest is limited solely to improving or maintaining the health of the individual seeking care, . . . and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.

 

* * *

 

4. The provisions of this section are to be liberally construed in favor of reproductive freedom and privacy and [sic] intended to control over any section of Idaho Code . . .[v]

​​

​

Requiring a compelling state interest is usually reserved for fundamental constitutional rights, which require strict scrutiny. This is the most difficult level of scrutiny for the state to overcome. As mentioned above, this initiative does not, and cannot, create a constitutional right, let alone a fundamental one. Yet, abortion advocates are trying to shoehorn constitutional standards into a statutory matter. The language of this initiative also makes it very clear that the state will not be allowed to regulate abortion in any form, let alone argue that there is a compelling state interest in protecting the unborn. Even the most modest regulations, like parental involvement or informed consent, would not be allowed as they would “infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.”

 

 

The initiative gives some pretense of regulation after viability,

 

It shall not be a violation of the right to reproductive freedom and privacy for the state to regulate abortion care after fetal viability, except in cases of medical emergency.[vi]

 

 

The definition of a medical emergency only applies to a physical medical condition, but allows the attending physician very broad discretion in the application of the definition.[vii] This definition also begs the question: if the child is viable, why do you need to kill it to protect the mother? Wouldn’t delivering the child alive achieve the same end? Of course, the point is to kill the child. Allowing abortion after viability is not about personal freedom; rather, it creates a right to a dead child.

 

 

The definition of abortion in the initiative is also problematic,

 

“Abortion” or “Abortion care” means the use of any means which [sic] are consistent with widely accepted medical standards necessary for the procedure or treatment to intentionally terminate a pregnancy.[viii]

 

​

Under this definition, the post-viability induction of labor to deliver a live child is an abortion. It is a procedure that intentionally terminates a pregnancy. For the past three years, abortion advocates in Idaho have been complaining that it is impossible to comply with the pro-life laws because they are too vague to follow. One would think they would take special care to ensure clarity in their pursuit of legalizing abortion.

 

 

This initiative has just started the signature collection phase, so technically, it is not on the ballot yet. But there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t collect the required signatures. For the past three years, Idahoans have been inundated with stories of women who were allegedly denied miscarriage care, had to leave the state to abort their disabled children, or had to be flown out of state for emergency abortions because, allegedly, they could not receive proper care in Idaho. Many of these women are the ones behind Idahoans United for Women and Families. Sadly, most voters are not going to read the initiative or understand its extreme nature. People will vote based on emotional stories, not realizing they are voting for abortion on demand, with no meaningful regulations. Pro-lifers in Idaho cannot rest on their laurels. Yes, Idaho is a conservative, pro-life state, but that is no assurance against an insidious pro-abortion initiative.

​

_________________________

[i] Idaho Code §18-622. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-622/.

[ii] Idaho Code §18-623. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-623/.

[iii] Idaho Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Measure (2026) https://ballotpedia.org/Idaho_Reproductive_Freedom_and_Privacy_Measure_(2026).

[iv] Idaho Code §41-1853. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title41/T41CH18/SECT41-1853/.

[v] Letter from Idahoans United for Women and Families to Idaho Secretary of State. https://sos.idaho.gov/elections/initiatives/2026/RFPA.pdf.

[vi] Id. 

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

​