>>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT.

LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

>>> IT'S BEEN A BUSY SUMMER WITH NEW LAWS GOING INTO PLACE THAT BAN ABORTION IN IDAHO AND MULTIPLE LAWSUITS CHALLENGING THOSE STATUTES.

ALL THIS, WHILE THE GENERAL ELECTION LOOMS.

WE'LL GIVE YOU THE LATEST.

I'M MELISSA DAVLIN.

THE 51ST SEASON OF "IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.

♪ ♪ >>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE NEW SEASON OF "IDAHO REPORTS."

THIS WEEK SENATOR ME -- MELISSA WINTROW SIT DOWN WITH PRODUCER RUTH BROWN TO DISCUSS THIS WEEK'S IDAHO SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS OVER THREE SEPARATE LAWSUITS CONCERNING ABORTION BANS AND THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAT WENT INTO PLACE THIS PAST SUMMER.

BUT FIRST, ELECTION DAY IS JUST A MONTH AWAY.

AND THIS PAST WEEK IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION HOSTED THE FIRST TWO DEBATES OF FOUR WE'RE AIRING THIS ELECTION CYCLE.

FIRST LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THE U.S. SENATE DEBATE WITH DEMOCRATIC DAVID ROTH, INDEPENDENT SCOTT CLEVELAND, AND INCUMBENT SENATOR MIKE CRAPO, WHO DISCUSSED SPENDING THE PAC ACT, EXTREMISM, AND COACH MORE.

>> I BELIEVE AS A UNITED STATE SENATOR YOU HAVE TO DIG YOUR HEELS IN.

YOU HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE AND THAT POWER SHOULD BE WIELDED.

OUR SOUTHERN BORDERS BEING INVADED ON A DAILY BASIS.

IT IS A VIOLATION.

OATH OF OFFICE OF OUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS WELL AS OUR PRESIDENT.

AND THAT DELIVERED INVASION CAN ONLY BE STOPPED WITH THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE BACKBONE TO DO IT.

YOU'LL NOTICE THAT EVERY SIX MONTHS THEY WANT TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING IN THIS COUNTRY.

IF I WERE A SITTING UNITED STATES SENATOR, I WOULD SAY, I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU ABOUT MONEY UNTIL THAT BORDER IS CLOSED TO MY SATISFACTION.

>> I VOTED AGAINST IT FOR THE VERY REASONS I'VE BEEN ATTACKED BY MR. CLEVELAND, THAT IS IT PUT 380 BILLION DOLLARS OF NEW SPENDING POTENTIAL, A BIG HOLE, A SLUSH FUND HOLE, IN THE BUDGET TO ALLOW THE VATS TO -- DEMOCRATS TO SPEND ANOTHER $380 MILLION.

CHUCK SCHUMER HAS BEEN CONSISTENT ON THIS, WHEN HE SEES ONE THAT HAS REPUBLICAN SUPPORT, HE ADDS A BOATLOAD OF NEW SPENDING DO IT AND PUTS REPUBLICANS IN THE POSITION OF VOTING "NO" ON THINGS THEY SUPPORT OR AUTHORIZING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF NEW SPENDING.

I DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE THAT'S THE STRATEGY CHECK SCHUMER WAS PUSHING.

AND I WILL SAY AS FAR AS VETERANS, IN THE PAC 10 ACT, ONE -- PACT ACT, ONE OF THE LEAD PIECES IS WAS MY BILL.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD PUSH BACK AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY AND LOOK AT WAYS TO PROTECT OUR SENIOR CITIZENS.

AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW DOES EXTREMISM GROW IN THE FIRST PLACE.

ONE OF THE MAIN WAYS IS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE VERY UNHAPPY.

HERE IN IDAHO THEY'VE BEEN LIVING IBDER REPUBLICAN SUPERMAJORITY FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

NEARLY HALF OF THEM CAN'T AFFORD TO MAKE ENDS MEET.

THEY'RE VERY UNHAPPY.

WE NEED TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN OUR COMMUNITIES AND IN OUR STATE TO TRY TO IMPROVE THOSE SITUATIONS AND STARVE OUT EXTREMISM SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT FERTILE BED FOR IT TO LIE IN.

>> JOINING ME TODAY TO DISCUSS THOSE DEBATES ARE DR. STEPHANIE WITT FROM BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND BART DAVIS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR IDAHO AND FORMER SENATE% MAJORITY LEADER.

DR. WITT, I WANT TO START WITH YOU.

NO SECRET THAT IDAHO IS A DEEP RED STATE AND THIS IS A PRETTY SAFE ELECTION FOR INCUMBENT SENATOR CRAPO.

IT WOULD BE A TOUGH RACE FOR A DEMOCRAT OR CONSERVATIVE INDEPENDENT.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE CHALLENGES -- ESPECIALLY AN INCUMBENT WHO HAS HELD OFFICE SINCE THE '80S.

HOW DOES THE DYNAMICS CHANGE THE CONSIDERATIONS?

>> IT'S -- CONVERSATIONS?

>> I'D POINT OUT HE'S ONE OF THE FIRST STATEWIDE CANDIDATES WHO IS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN A D-BACKS.

WHAT THE VOTERS GET FROM -- D-BACKS.

SO WHAT -- DEBATE.

WHAT THE VOTERS GET IS ALTERNATIVE VIEWS, TO HEAR SOME ALTERNATIVE THINGS TO TALK ABOUT ON POLICY ISSUES THAT PERHAPS AREN'T ON THE TOP OF SENATOR CRAPO'S TO DO BUSINESS.

AND SO IT DOES SERVE TO INTRODUCE PEOPLE TO SOME OTHER IDEAS.

IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT ANYTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE IN THE SELECTION SINCE 2002.

YOU MAY SEE A LITTLE HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF DEMOCRAT VOTING IN THE STATE.

WE'LL SEE -- THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE ELECTION, TO SEE WHO WINS.

BUT I THINK HE'S VERY SAFE, THE FAMILIARITY OF HIS NAME, THE POWERS OF INCUMBENCY, YOU KNOW.

HE'S GOT A REALLY BIG WAR CHEST THAT HE CAN FUND TV ADS AND SO ON.

SO I THINK HE'S GOING TO RUN REAL STRONG THROUGH THE END.

HE'S UNDER -- IT'S UNLIKELY THAT HE'S GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH RACE.

>> BUT YOU HAVE A CANDIDATE WHO IS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.

AN OWNER OF AN INVESTMENT FIRM IN EAGLE WITH SCOTT CLEVELAND.

AND THEN YOU HAVE DEMOCRAT DAVID ROTH WHO HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH HOUSING ISSUES, HAS WORKED WITH LOW-INCOME IDAHOANS STRUGGLING WITH FOOD INSECURITY.

WITH THE IDAHO FALLS FOOD BANK.

BOTH OF THEM BRING TO THE TABLE ISSUES THAT MAYBE A LOT OF POLITICIANS DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH, ESPECIALLY DURING THE PANDEMIC.

AND I THINK WE SAW THAT DYNAMIC DURING THE DEBATE ON -- THAT AIRED ON TUESDAY.

>> YEAH, IT -- TO ME ROETHLISBERGER WAS TRYING -- ROTH WAS TRYING TO GET THE POCKETBOOK ISSUES BACK ON THE AGENDA.

SENATOR CRAPO IS ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE POCKETBOOK ISSUES BECAUSE HE'S WORRIED ADDING TO THE DEIS -- DEFICIT, WHICH IS A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING.

I THINK ROTH WAS COMING MORE STRONGLY WITH THE INFLATION IS HURTING PEOPLE.

THEY NEED SOME HELP.

THEY NEED A CHANGE.

NOW, IF THAT'S GOING TO RESULT IN A CHANGE IN THE OFFICE HOLDER, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT.

>> YOU SERVED IN THE IDAHO STATE SENATE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, 19 YEARS, BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE DYNAMIC, WHEN IT COMES TO DECIDING HOW YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON LEGISLATION THAT UF VERY MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT.

THAT WAS A CRITICISM THAT SENATOR CRAPO RECEIVED A LOT THIS WEEK, THAT HE VOTED "NO" ON THE CHIPS ACT, VOTED "NO" ON THE PACT ACT, THAT HE VOTED "NO" ON LEGISLATION WHERE HE SUPPORTED THE CONCEPT AND NOT THE SPENDING.

>> IN IDAHO, WE HAVE TO -- ALL LEGISLATION HAS TO BE ON A SINGLE SUBJECT.

AND SO WE CAN'T DO IN IDAHO WHAT SENATOR CRAPO DESCRIBED WAS DONE TO HIM AND OTHERS IN THE U.S. SENATE.

BUT IT IS STILL TRUE THAT MANY TIMES A BILL WOULD COME UP AND THERE WAS A LOT IN THE BILL I LIKED.

I WAS 60% AYE AND 40% NAY OR JUST THE REVERSE.

OR ASPECT THAT IS HIT THE PRIMARY POLICY TARGET BUT THERE WERE SOME POISON PILL LEANING IN THERE THAT I -- LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT I JUST FELL YOU CAN CRVEG WITH THAT.

AND REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS IN THOSE MOMENTS.

THOSE ARE TOUGH DECISIONS.

AND YOU STILL ON THE FLOOR SOMETIMES AND THE FIRST PERSON DEBATES AND YOU KNOW THAT MAKES RED SKINS 0 -- AND YOU'RE -- SENSE AND YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE AYE.

AND ON SECOND THOUGHT, MAYBE I'M A NAY.

YOU DOUGH BACK AND FORTH ON IT.

THESE -- YOU GO BACK AND FORTH ON IT.

THESE ARE HARD ISSUES AND SOMETIMES THEY REQUIRE HARD VOTES AND THERE ARE OFTENTIMES THAT I HAD -- I WOULD GO HOME AT THE END OF A SESSION AND I WASN'T SURE IF I CAST THE RIGHT VOTE ON A FEW BILLS.

AS TIME WENT BY, I BECAME MORE CONFIDENT.

BUT THAT'S -- I THOUGHT SENATOR CRAPO APPROPRIATELY DESCRIBED THE DIFFICULTY OF SOME DECISIONS YOU HAVE TO MAKE.

>> THIS WEEK WE ALSO SAW A DEBATE BETWEEN CANDIDATES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL.

REPUBLICAN LABRADOR AND DEMOCRAT AM ARCUSH.

>> WHEN YOU HAVE A CLIENT AND YOU GIVE THEM OPINION AND BEFORE YOU TAKE THEM INTO LITIGATION, YOU SIT DOWN AND VISIT WITH THEM.

I'VE HAD 44 YEARS OF DOING THAT.

I HAVE NEVER HAD A COMPLAINT ABOUT A FRIVOLOUS DEFENSE OR A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.

I THINK A LOT OF WHAT MIGHT BE GOING ON IS THAT WE NEVER GET TO THE MIDDLE.

THE OPINION IS WRITTEN AND THE STATE GOES STRAIGHT TO LITIGATION.

>> MY RECORD IS REALLY CLEAR.

I AM A STRONG CONSERVATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE VALUES OF IDAHO.

I'M A STRONG CONSERVATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO.

AND I WILL DEFEND THEM IN THE COURTS.

I WILL DEFEND THEM WHEN I REPRESENT THEM AS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

AND THAT'S WHY I OVERWHELMINGLY WON IN THE PRIMARY, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO WERE LOOKING FOR A NEW DIRECTION IN THAT OFFICE.

>> HE'S GONNA STAND UP AND TELL THE LEGISLATORS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MY JOB TO WORK WITH THE LEGISLATORS IS TO HELP THEM DRAFT IT IN A WAY THAT CAN BE DEFENDED IN THE COURTS.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILE FRIVOLOUS SUITS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILE ANY LAWSUIT THAT IS WE'RE GOING TO LOSE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP MY OATH AND THE -- THE TOP TIER OF THE OATH IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOW HAS THAT WORKED OUT SO FAR WHEN THE LEGISLATURE DECIDES TO PASS A BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND THEN SPENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE FUND TO DEFEND IT.

IT'S NEVER -- IT JUST COSTS US MONEY.

>> DR. WITT, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THIS IS -- IDAHO IS A TOUGH HILL TO CLIMB FOR DEMOCRATS SEEK, STATEWIDE OFFICE.

IN THIS RACE, TOM HAS RECEIVED ENDORSEMENTS FROM HIGH-PROFILE REPUBLICANS INCLUDING FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE SERSA, FORMER REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IDAHO SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE JIM JONES.

THAT -- HOW MUCH OF THAT DYNAMIC IS GOING TO PLAY INTO THAT FINAL VOTE TALLY ON NOVEMBER 8TH?

>> WELL, OF COURSE, IT'S HARD TO TELL IN ADVANCE IF THAT WILL SWAY PEOPLE WHO MAYBE -- IDENTIFY AS REPUBLICANS OR REGISTERED REPUBLICANS TO VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT.

I DON'T KNOW.

I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE SOME NUMBER OF -- OF -- IF THERE ARE STILL MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO VOTE FOR ARCUSH AS OPPOSED TO LAB LABRADOR.

I NOTICED THAT MR. LABRADOR ABOUT A WONDERFUL JOB OF CONTINUALLY REMINDING PEOPLE THAT MR. ARCUSH HAD HIS PEOPLE THAT WERE HELPING HIM THAT WERE ONCE REPUBLICAN OFFICE HOLDERS.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING THERE IS A LITTLE EVIDENCE OF, YOU KNOW, THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BECOMING SO LARGE THAT IT'S KIND OF SPLIT OFF INTO AFFECTIONS.

-- FACTIONS AND MR. LABRADOR REPRESENTS I THINK A FURTHER RIGHT OR MAYBE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE ON SOME OF THOSE CONSERVATIVE ISSUES THAN JIM JONES AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE STANDING WITH TOM AS CUSH.

>> AND THAT DIVIDE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS CERTAINLY NOTHING NEW.

WE'VE SEEN THAT FOR MANY YEARS.

>> RIGHT.

>> IN IDAHO.

I WANTED TO GET YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPPOSITE AS RELATES TO THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE.

BOTH OF THEM TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO DEFENDING IDAHO'S LAWS AND TRYING TO KEEP LAWMAKERS OUT OF TROUBLE BY WORKING WITH THEM TO STOP THEM FROM PREVENTING WHAT THEY THINK IS INSCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> WELL, I AM AN ATTORNEY AND I HAVE PRACTICED LAW AND I HAVE PRACTICED LAW -- CERTAINLY NORTH OF 40 YEARS.

AND THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE DOES NOT SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE.

AND CERTAINLY WITHIN EACH PARTY THERE'S A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW.

SO BEING ABLE TO SPEAK TO ONE OR TWO OR SMALL HANDFUL OF LEGISLATORS DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU'RE SPEAKING OR WORKING WITH THE ENTIRE LEGISLATURE.

BUT THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT TO SET THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

THAT'S THE LEGISLATORS' JOB.

THE -- ONE THING THAT THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE I THINK IS MISSING IS A LEGAL GUIDING HAND AS THEY ARE CRAFTING LEGISLATION.

WHEN I WANT TO WRITE A BILL AND I GO TO OUR LEGISLATORS SERVICES OFFICE, WE HAVE SOME REMARKABLE LEGAL PROFESSIONALS THERE THAT HELP US CRACK THE -- CRAFT THE BILLS.

BUT THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM TELLING YOU HOW THE COURTS ARE GOING TO RECEIVE THIS LEGISLATION.

THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO WORD SMITH IT.

-- WORDSMITH IT, YOUR IDEAS FOR YOU.

BUT HAVING A LEGAL -- HAVING AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THERE THAT CAN GUIDE PRIOR TO ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR A LEGAL OPINION, I THINK COULD BE HELPFUL TO THE STATE OF IDAHO.

WHETHER THEY'LL DO THAT OR NOT, I GUESS ONLY TIME WILL TELL.

BUT THE LEGISLATE -- ONCE THE LEGISLATURE IS DONE, THEN I BELIEVE IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO FIND THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEAMS OF THE BILL AND THE EDGES OF IT.

AND I FRANKLY I LEARNED THAT FROM THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I WAS -- I WAS NOT ALWAYS HAPPY WITH EVERY OPINION WE GOT FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

BUT IT WASN'T HIS JOB TO TELL ME WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR, WHICH IS TRUE FOR A GOOD LAWYER.

THAT LAWYER'S JOB IS TO TELL THEIR CLIENT WHAT THEY NEED TO HEAR.

AND SO -- BUT ONCE WE'RE DONE, THEN IT'S THE JOB OF THE LAWYER TO GO AND FIGHT FOR THE CLIENT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING.

>> FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR IDAHO BART DAVIS, DR. STEPHANIE WITT, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS WEEK.

IF YOU MISSED ANY OF OUR DEBATES YOU CAN WATCH THEM AT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORTS/DEBATS >>> DURING A TUESDAY MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE, U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION MIGUEL CARDONA SAID HIS DEPARTMENT IS ISSUING A REMINDER TO SCHOOLS THAT TITLE IX PROTECTS STUDENTS FROM SEX-BASED DISCRIMINATION BASED ON PREGNACY, TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY, OR ANY RELATED CONDITIONS.

DURING HIS REMARKS, PRESIDENT BIDEN SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED A MEMO THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO SENT TO STAFF MEMBERS IN SEPTEMBER VISITING THEM NOT TO PROMOTE OR MAKE REFERRALS FOR ABORTION OR BIRTH CONTROL LEST THEY RUN AFOUL OF THE NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION ACT, WHICH THE LEGISLATURE PASSED IN 2021.

>> OFFICIALS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO SAID IT SHOULD STOP PROVIDING CONTRACEPTION AS IS MENTIONED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT.

IN FACT, THEY TOLD THE UNIVERSITY STAFF THAT THEY COULD GET IN TROUBLE JUST FOR TALKING OR TELLING STUDENTS ABOUT BIRTH -- WHERE THEY GET BIRTH CONTROL.

FOLKS, WHAT CENTURY ARE WE IN?

I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE DOING?

I RESPECT EVERYONE'S VIEW ON THIS, PERM DECISIONS THEY MAKE, BUT MY LORD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONTRACEPTION HERE.

IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT CONTROVERSIAL.

BUT THAT'S -- THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU START TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY.

>> ON WEDNESDAY UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO PRESIDENT SCOTT GREEN AND PROVOST TORY LAWRENCE SENT A FOLLOW-UP TO EMPLOYEES CLARIFYING THAT NO UNIVERSITY POLICIES HAD CHANGED AND FACULTY COULD STALE LEAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ABORTION AS IT RELATES TO THEIR CURRICULUM.

THEY ALSO REITERATED THAT THE UNIVERSITY COULDN'T PREDICT HOW THE STATE WOULD ENFORCE THE NO PUBLIC FUNDS FOR ABORTION ACT.

>>> "IDAHO REPORTS" DISCUSSED THAT ORIGINAL MEMO FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO IN-DEPTH LAST WEEK ON THE PODCAST.

WITH FORMER IDAHO SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM JONES, WHO ALSO EXPLAINS HOW THE LAW COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT OTHER STATE EMPLOYEES DEPENDING ON HOW PROSECUTORS INTERPRET IT.

FULL DISCLOSURE, IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS A STATE AGENCY.

YOU CAN FIND THAT CONVERSATION WITH JONES AT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORTS OR ON YOUR FAVORITE POT CAST PLAYER.

AND -- PODCAST PLAYER AND BE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE.

>>> ON THURSDAY THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THREE SEPARATE LAWSUITS CONCERNING ABORTION CRIMINALIZATION IN IDAHO CODE, ALL OF WHICH WENT INTO PLACE THIS PAST SUMMER.

ONE IS A TOTAL ABORTION BAN WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR RAPE, INCEST, AND THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

ANOTHER BANS ABORTIONS AFTER A DETECTABLE FETAL HEART BEAT AND ALLOWS RELATIVES TO SUE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS WHO PERFORMED THE ABORTION.

OTHERS FOCUSED ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE HAD AN INTEREST IN THE STATE OF THE MOTHER.

>> -- MAY BECOME COME PELING, BUT IT'S NOT COMPELLING EARLY IN THE PREGNANCY.

IT'S NOT A RIGHT THAT THE -- OR AN INTEREST THAT THE LAW IS WILLING TO PROTECT IN DAREGATION OF A WOMAN'S RIGHT IN TERMS OF PREGNANCY.

>> LIABILITY IS NOT A GREAT LINE.

THERE'S NO PRINCIPLED BASIS FOR CHOOSING THAT LINE OVER ANY OTHER.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

ONCE YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT FETUS IS A BEING, AND IT'S IN DISPUTE -- INDISPUTABLY HUMAN, YOU'RE DEALING WITH A HUMAN BENG FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END.

>> PRODUCER RUTH BROWN SAT DOWN TO DISCUSS THE HEARING.

>> ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TODAY REVOLVED AROUND THE TRIGGER LAW AND THAT INCLUDES PUNISHMENTS FOR DOCTORS IF THEY CONDUCT AN ILLEGAL ABORTION.

IT WOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY A FELONY, POSSIBLE PRISON TIME.

REPRESENTATIVE BLANKSMA, YOU COSPONSORED THIS LEGISLATION IN 2021.

DID YOU -- 2022.

DID YOU EXPECT TO SEE THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS WE SAW TODAY AROUND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

>> I THINK SOME OF THEM WERE INEVITABLE.

I THINK ANYTIME YOU TRY TO CRAFT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT THIS THAT HAS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOKING AT IT FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

AND I THINK WHEN WE -- WHEN THIS PIECE WAS CRAFTED, THE WHOLE CONCEPT, THE DRIVING CONCEPT WAS THE SAME AS I BELIEVE MOST IDAHOANS BELIEVE THAT ELECTED ABORTIONS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL.

AND THIS WAS EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN THOSE VALUES SHOULD THE SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKE THAT POSITION.

NOW THAT IT'S BECOME POSSIBLE, THERE -- PEOPLE HAVE REALLY DUG INTO THE CODE AND THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES OF WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE WRITING AT THE TIME VERSUS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SEEING IN THE LANGUAGE.

>> OKAY.

REPRESENTATIVE WINTRO, YOU WERE THERE TODAY IN COURT.

WHAT WAS YOUR TAKEAWAY FROM THIS MORNING'S ARGUMENTS?

>> I THINK THE BIGGEST TAKEAWAY I HEARD THAT I'VE ACTUALLY HEARD ON A RESIDENT PRETTY DAILY BASIS FROM CONSTITUENTS IS THAT THE STATE IS ON RECORD AND WAS IN COMMITTEE AS WELL, THAT A WOMAN'S LIFE DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, AND THAT THE VALUE OF THE POTENTIAL LIFE OF AN EMBRYO OR FETUS MEANS MUCH MORE THAN A WOMAN LYING ON A GURNEY.

I THINK THAT WAS VERY CLEAR AND IT WAS REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES.

>> IN DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE HEARTBEAT ACT, THE COURT HAD QUESTIONS AROUND THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ALLOW FAMILY MEMBERS OF A POTENTIAL RAPIST SHOULD THE PREGNANCY BE THE RESULT OF RAPE, BEING ALLOWED TO SUE.

THAT CAME UP IN COURT.

THE LEGISLATURE'S ATTORNEY ARCHITECTED THOSE -- WHETHER THOSE FAMILY MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE A STAKE IN THAT PREGNANCY.

HOW WOULD YOU -- I GUESS HOW WOULD YOU FRAME THE INTENT OF THAT LEGISLATION?

>> I WAS NOT A SPONSOR OF THAT LEGISLATION, OF THE HEARTBEAT LEGISLATION, FIRST OF ALL.

AND SECOND OF ALL, I WOULD REJECT THAT THE STATEMENTS BY THE DEMOCRATS THAT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT WOMEN'S LIVES.

WE ABSOLUTELY DO 100%.

I THINK THAT IT'S LOADED LANGUAGE AND I THINK IT'S UNFAIR IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CIVIL DISCUSSION TO TRY TO GO INTO NAME CALLING WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO DISCUSS A PIECE OF LEGISLAION.

WITH REGARD TO THE HEARTBEAT BILL, THERE'S ALSO SOME QUESTION AS TO WHICH LAW SUPERCEDES.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, MY READING, AND MY DISCUSSION WITH THE ATTORNEYS, IS THAT THE TRIGGER BILL WOULD SUPERCEDE THE HEARTBEAT BILL, WOULD THEN ADDRESS THAT CONDITION WITH REGARD TO RAPE OR INCEST.

>> THAT WAS A DISCUSSION THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD TODAY AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WILL LIKELY STILL HAMMER OUT.

LOOKING BACK ON THE HEARTBEAT BILL, IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE -- I GUESS WOULD HAVE CHANGED OR -- >> WELL, IT'S DIFFICULT.

YOU HATE TO -- I WAS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EAT OF THE HEARTBEAT BILLS, SO WE'VE HAD DO AND SANDWICHED IN BETWEEN WAS THE TRIGGER BILL WHICH WAS THE ONE THAT I CARRIED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.

SO IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO CLAIM INTENTION ON CERTAIN LANGUAGE WHEN I WASN'T KEY TO WRITING EITHER OF THOSE.

>> TODAY'S DISCUSSION FOCUSED HEAVILY ON BODILY AUTONOMY AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

ON THE HOUSE FLOOR AND THE SENATE FLOOR, THE FOCUS IS ALMOST ALWAYS ON WHEN LIFE BEGINS AND ON PREGNANY WOMEN.

THERE'S A REAL DIVIDE THERE.

AS SOMEONE WHO COVERED COURTS FOR 10 YEARS AND COVERS THE LEGISLATURE AS WELL.

WE'LL START WITH YOU, SENATOR, WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT DIVIDE MAYBE HOW THE COURT APPROACHES THINGS AND THE LEGISLATURE APPROACHES THINGS -- WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE ON THE FALLOUT OF THE LEGISLATION?

>> WELL, I THINK FIRST, I DID WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT REPRESENTATIVE BLANKMA SAID, IS THAT I THINK I'M PRETTY BEING CIVIL AND I THINK THE -- I'M NOT NAME CALLING EITHER.

THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT INCORPORATE THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER.

ONLY -- I GUESS THE LETHALITY PIECE.

AND EVEN AS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTERVENES, I SHOULD SAY, ON THIS LATEST CASE, THE STATE IS NOW -- LEGISLATURE IS FIGHTING IT BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER.

SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING NAME CALLING THERE.

I'M JUST STATING CLEARLY THE TRUTH, THAT IT'S NOT IN THE LEGISLATION.

AND I DON'T THINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM ALSO -- I THINK THEY ECHO THAT IN SOME OF THEIR DESCRIPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF ABOUT WHEN LIFE BEGINS AND THAT'S AT FERTILIZATION.

THE PLATFORM STATES THAT IT WOULD BE MURDER IF ANYBODY INTERFERED AT ANY POINT ALONG THE WAY AFTER FERTILIZATION.

SO I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WHAT IS BEING VALUED OVER THE OTHER.

AND THAT WAS SAID REPEATEDLY, THE JUSTICES ASKED SEVERAL TIMES AND THE STATE REPEATED THAT THE -- THE LIFE IN THEIR WORDS OF THE UNBORN WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

THAT WAS SAID.

>> REPRESENTATIVE?

>> I THINK THAT AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING -- I'M TRYING MY BEST TO NOT USE CHARGED LANGUAGE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON ABORTION, THERE'S CERTAIN WORDS THAT YOU CAN USE THAT ARE TRIGGER WORDS.

WORDS THAT -- THAT PEOPLE FEEL THAT HAVE MORE VALUE THAN OTHERS, AND I'M REALLY TRYING TO AVOID THOSE IN THE INTEREST OF HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

THE LAW DOES ADDRESS THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER.

THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHERE LONG-TERM COULD CAUSE, YOU KNOW, DEATH.

BUT CERTAINLY HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS ARE TAKEN UP FRONT.

THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE COURTS NOW, IS AT WHAT POINT.

SO I THINK THAT'S BENG THE LONG-TERM DISCUSSION IN THE UNITED STATES.

AT WHAT POINT DO YOU WANT TO VALUE THE LIFE OF AN UNBORN CHILD AND AT WHAT POINT DO YOU VALUE THE LIFE OF THE WOMAN CARRYING THE CHILD.

AND SOME TYPE OF BALANCE HAS TO BE MADE.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE TRIGGER BILL, WE TRIED TO FIND THAT BALANCE, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AS FAR AS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS, WHICH IS OFTEN THE KEY PHRASE THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USING, YOU LOOK AT CHOICE OF THE WOMAN.

CHOICES WERE MADE.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF A WOMAN CHOOSES TO GET PREGNANT, A CHOICE WAS MADE.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO HAVE BIOLOGY CLASS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT HAPPENS.

BUT I CAN ALSO SAY THAT THOSE THREE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE IN IDAHO CODE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS WHEN THE CHOICE IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE WOMAN.

VERY SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED WHEN THE CHOICE IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE WOMAN.

CHOICES ARE REMOVED IF A WOMAN IS RAPED, CHOICES ARE REMOVED IN CASES OF INCEST, AND CHOICES ARE REMOVED WHEN YOU ARE -- COULD POTENTIALLY DIE BECAUSE OF A PREGNANCY.

AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THOSE EXCEPTIONS.

AND I THINK THAT -- THAT GOES UNRECOGNIZED AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE.

>> YEAH.

I APPRECIATE THE REPRESENTATIVE SAYING THAT, BUT I I DON'T THINK THEY'RE EXCEPTIONS.

THEY'RE -- THEY'RE A LOUD AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.

YOU'RE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

THAT WAS THE MAJOR DISCUSSION TODAY, IS THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE THAT IT APPEARS.

JUSTICES WERE ASKING THAT AGAIN AND AGAIN.

I DO KIND OF -- I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THE LANGUAGE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE IS USING ABOUT CHOICE.

NUMBER ONE, I THINK WHEN WE -- JUSTICES EVEN KIND OF DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THIS QUESTION.

IN THE CASE OF RAPE AND INCEST, IT REQUIRES A POLICE REPORT.

AND AS I'VE SAID ON THE SENATE FLOOR TWICE AT LEAST, ESPECIALLY IN MY EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, YOU CAN'T GET A POLICE REPORT.

IT IS PROTECTED BY LAW.

>> AND I WOULD LIKE TO INTERRUPT, BECAUSE WHEN WE'VE GOT CASES OF RAPE -- I'M NOT -- IF YOU JUST LISTEN WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY FOR JUST A MINUTE.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS RAPE AND INCEST, THOSE ARE FELONIES.

THOSE ARE SEIZURES FELONIES.

AND -- SERIOUS FELONIES.

AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS HOW THOSE ARE REPORTED.

SO IN A WAY I'M AGREEING WITH YOU, IN THAT THOSE ARE SERIOUS CONDITIONS.

AND TO WALK PAST THAT AND MAKE THE INFERNS THAT IT'S JUST -- INFERENCE THAT IT'S JUST TOO DIFFICULT TOST RO, I THINK WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SITUATION THERE.

RATHER THAN TO ARGUE ABOUT THE REPORTING CONDITION, I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THOSE ARE FELONIES AND MAYBE WE NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON HOW THOSE SHOULD BE REPORTED OR WAYS TO MAKE THE REPORTING MORE REASONABLE FOR FOLKS THAT -- THAT NEED TO DO THE REPORTING.

>> I THINK YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT -- I HOPE AT LEAST, THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T REPORT A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR INCEST IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THINK ABOUT THE WEIGHT UPON SOMEBODY, ESPECIALLY A MINOR F A RELATIVE HAS RAPED YOU.

WHO DO YOU GO TO, WHO DO YOU TALK TO.

>> IT'S IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, LADIES.

I APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU.

♪ ♪ >>> PRESENTATION OF IDAHO REPORTS ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.