Currently, Idaho parents must be notified and give consent for their child to have an abortion. That is not the case in Montana. Montana parents lost that right in August 2024.
Montana’s misfortune offers an important lesson to Idaho voters considering Proposition 1. Montana parents lost their right, not as the result of a new law, but because of what a court construed from something less obvious. It began with an explicit right to privacy. From there, the Montana courts interpreted that provision to protect abortion, and the courts concluded that protection extended to minors. In August 2024, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the parental-consent law for minors. The United States Supreme Court turned the issue back to the state, refusing to hear the case, and Montana parents lost the right to oversee their own child’s medical care when it comes to abortion.
Could this happen in Idaho? Prop 1, if passed, could raise the same legal arguments that persuaded the Montana Supreme Court to shut out parents. Prop 1 says ‘every person’ has the right to reproductive freedom and privacy, including (but not limited to) the right to make decisions about abortion. It contains no age limitation and expresses no exception for unemancipated minors. While Idaho’s current law gives a parent authority to consent, subject to judicial bypass and specified exemptions, Prop 1 does not expressly preserve that parental veto or authorize parental-consent or parental-inform requirements.
Proposition 1 expressly begins, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary,” and says its provisions are intended to control over every other section of Idaho Code. That language places Idaho’s parental notification and consent laws at significant legal risk.
Furthermore, Proposition 1 does not narrowly define privacy as only related to abortion. Prop 1 says, “‘Reproductive health care’ means health care and other medical services related to the reproductive processes, functions, and systems.” Because Prop 1 defines ‘reproductive health care’ broadly, future litigation could extend beyond abortion to other medical decisions involving reproductive health. Parental consent could be threatened in medical decisions beyond just pregnancy and abortion. In addition, Prop 1 defines a health care provider as a licensed person OR an entity. If there were no “an” before “entity”, one would assume that the entity must also be licensed, but the “an” makes it appear that the entity does not need to be licensed. Courts may be asked to determine whether Prop 1 protects private consultation between ambiguous health care providers and minors regarding reproductive healthcare.
The family is the fundamental unit of society. It is referred to as a “pre-governmental institution” because it existed before and independent of government. Idahoans need to carefully consider if it is in the best interest of Idaho families to jeopardize that relationship. Vote NO on Proposition 1.