As of this writing I’ve not heard if Judge VanderVelde has issued an opinion in the lawsuit against the Prop 1 sponsors and the Idaho Democrats for the way in which they moved money around to get cheaper advertising rates for Prop 1 TV ads. I’ll keep you posted!
Today I published two op-eds calling for voters to reject Prop 1. I’ll have another tomorrow. The results of this initiative will show whether the Gem State truly values life, which is why it’s so important for you to make the time to vote.
COX: I’m an Idaho OB/GYN. I Oppose Proposition 1, and I’m Not Alone
By Dr. Kim Cox, MD
For 35 years, I have had the privilege of caring for women and their pregnancies in Pocatello, Idaho. I am a Christian, a political conservative, and an obstetrician-gynecologist who believes deeply in the value of both a mother and her unborn child. I have dedicated my professional life to caring for both, often during the most difficult and vulnerable moments of their lives.
My colleague and practice partner, Dr. Carole Shelley, recently published an opinion in the Idaho State Journal supporting Proposition 1, the proposed Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Shelley, both personally and professionally. We have spent years working alongside one another, caring for the same community and sharing a commitment to our patients’ well-being. Nevertheless, we have significant differences regarding Proposition 1, and I believe Idaho voters deserve to understand why.
Many people mistakenly believe Idaho’s obstetricians and gynecologists overwhelmingly support Proposition 1. Yet fewer than 10% of the state’s 346 licensed physicians identifying as OB/GYN or maternal-fetal medicine specialists appear among the signatories of the United for Yes physician letter. This does not establish how the remaining physicians intend to vote, but it should dispel the notion that our profession speaks with one political voice. Physicians are first and foremost healers, not political activists. We are independent professionals whose judgments are shaped by our individual training, experience, and responsibility to our patients.
My opposition to Proposition 1 centers on four fundamental concerns.
First, the recognition and value of unborn human life. Proposition 1 establishes a broad right to reproductive freedom and privacy, placing the decision to terminate a pregnancy primarily with the pregnant individual. What troubles me most is the absence of meaningful recognition of the unborn child’s life within that framework. As an obstetrician, I have spent my career observing, monitoring, and caring for developing human beings throughout pregnancy. I recognize the profound responsibilities and difficult circumstances facing pregnant women, but I also believe the life growing within the womb has intrinsic value. A law governing pregnancy should acknowledge both lives rather than treating the unborn child as though its existence carries no independent moral significance.
Second, the definition of fetal viability and the timing of abortion. Proposition 1 defines viability according to whether a fetus has a significant likelihood of sustained survival outside the uterus without extraordinary medical measures. This language concerns me greatly. Modern neonatal medicine routinely provides respiratory support, specialized intensive care, and other interventions to premature infants, many of whom go on to lead healthy lives. What, precisely, constitutes an extraordinary medical measure? Could this definition be interpreted to exclude infants who require significant support even at 34 to 36 weeks of gestation? While viability determinations would remain subject to a physician’s medical judgment, the ambiguity of this language raises serious questions about how late in pregnancy an abortion could be permitted. After 35 years in obstetrics, I believe the law should reflect the capabilities of modern neonatal medicine rather than create uncertainty about the value and viability of infants who need medical assistance to survive.
Third, parental rights and consent involving minors. Proposition 1 grants reproductive freedom and privacy to “every person,” without expressly distinguishing between adults and minor children. Its protections extend to decisions involving abortion, contraception, fertility treatment, and other reproductive healthcare. Furthermore, the measure directs that its provisions be liberally construed in favor of reproductive freedom and privacy and take precedence over conflicting sections of Idaho law. This raises legitimate concerns about how existing parental notification and consent requirements would be affected. Parents ordinarily play an essential role in important medical decisions involving their minor children. I believe the relationship between parents, children, and physicians deserves greater clarity and protection than Proposition 1 provides.
Fourth, the treatment of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. These are extraordinarily difficult circumstances that require compassion, sensitivity, and appropriate medical care. Idaho’s existing law provides a first-trimester abortion exception when rape or incest has been reported to law enforcement or the appropriate authorities. A victim does not need to secure a criminal conviction or prove an assault in court for the exception to apply. That distinction is important when discussing what Idaho law actually requires. While reasonable people may disagree about the adequacy of existing exceptions, those discussions should begin with an accurate understanding of the law rather than the suggestion that a victim must first prove her assault to the state.
I do not approach these questions without firsthand experience caring for women facing devastating pregnancy complications. During my career, I personally treated a patient whose severe, life-threatening complication required termination of a previable pregnancy. It was an incredibly difficult situation, but it was medically necessary to protect her life. That same patient subsequently experienced two additional pregnancies complicated by the same condition. This time, however, those complications occurred after the pregnancies had reached viability. Today, she is the mother of two delightful children.
I share this experience because it illustrates the complexity of obstetric medicine and the importance of individualized clinical judgment. Physicians must recognize life-threatening complications, act when medically necessary, and provide compassionate care without losing sight of the lives entrusted to us. My experience has reinforced my conviction that caring for a mother and valuing her unborn child are not mutually exclusive obligations.
Much has been said about Idaho physicians’ ability to practice medicine after the Dobbs decision. Yet across our state, dedicated obstetricians continue delivering babies, managing complicated pregnancies, treating emergencies, and caring for women every day. Our colleagues are doing remarkable work, and political narratives should not overshadow it. Idaho’s maternal healthcare outcomes also deserve consideration when evaluating claims about the effects of our laws.
Ultimately, my opposition to Proposition 1 is rooted in something deeper than politics. It is a moral conviction shaped by my Christian faith and 35 years of medical practice. We routinely ask our elected legislators to balance individual freedom against society’s obligation to protect human life. I believe pregnancy presents a profound example of that responsibility, because two human lives deserve our consideration.
On November 3, Idahoans will decide whether our laws should recognize the value of both a mother and her unborn child, or establish a new statutory framework that, in my view, fails to adequately protect the latter.
After 35 years caring for Idaho mothers and babies, I know where I stand.
I am voting NO on Proposition 1.
Dr. Kim Cox, MD, is an Idaho OB/GYN who has practiced in Pocatello, Idaho, for 35 years and delivered more than 8,000 babies.
RUSSELL: The Truth About Prop 1
By Andrew Russell
Everyone I know who supports Prop 1 in Idaho is doing so for one of the following reasons:
They don’t understand what’s ACTUALLY in Prop 1 (most common).
They don’t understand what’s ACTUALLY in current Idaho law.
They support elective abortion (least common).
I write this to address each of these reasons. My goals are to:
Help clear the air of misunderstanding.
Motivate those who might otherwise stay home to show up and vote “NO” on Nov. 3rd.
Change some minds and flip those leaning toward voting “yes” to confidently vote “NO!” instead.
MOON: Republican Leadership Has Made Idaho Prosperous and Free
GThese federal and statewide officials, along with your legislative, county, and municipal candidates, are Idaho’s Republican team. They are your neighbors, your coworkers, the men and women you see in the grocery store or the church pew. Each and every member of the team works hard to uphold our commitment to protecting faith, family, and freedom in the Gem State.
On Tuesday, November 3, you have a choice. Vote Republican to keep Idaho prosperous and free.
Press releases
Video of the day
The legendary Sir Patrick Stewart passed away this week. Critical Drinker and his friends remembered his decades of work, from Star Trek to X-Men to Dune and even to I, Claudius:
Have you been catching the Daily Minute? It’s an exclusive publication of the Gem State Chronicle summing up what you need to know, published most every weekday. You can subscribe on YouTube, Facebook, X, and even TikTok!
As always, thank you to sponsors Lynn Bradescu’s Boise Realty, Money Metals, and New Saint Andrews College. Do you want to see more independent journalism and level-headed political analysis in Idaho? Consider supporting the Gem State Chronicle with a paid subscription! Thank you again to all those who have given of themselves to support me and my work. I am humbled and grateful!