As more women delay having families for a variety of reasons, there are more risks for the mother. 

The reasons for delaying the start of a family are usually personal, although more women say attending college, dealing with student loan debt and delaying marriage are the top reasons found by a Pew Charitable Trust study. 

The Pew study reports the average age for first-time pregnancies has increased to 27.3 years old for most women, with Asian women waiting until an average age of 31 years and white women delaying pregnancy until an average of 28 years.

But with such delays also comes more risks, including pre-eclampsia (high blood pressure), gestational diabetes, premature births and still births. The Cleveland Clinic also notes women past the age of 35 wanting to get pregnant also have issues with lower egg quality (resulting in complications for the child) and chronic medical conditions.

Is it any wonder why so many women who experience problems find themselves in an emergency room needing to make the painful decision about ending the pregnancy?

Especially for first-time older mothers, a non-viable fetus is common. Yet under Idaho law, any women who discovers the fetus no longer has a heartbeat after six weeks can be forced to carry the fetus to “term.” The physical as well as psychological trauma of such a move is devastating, not just to the mother but also to her partner, the rest of her family and friends. 

Does the Legislature seriously want to create such chaos in state families? 

Legislators may, but the citizens do not. A 2024 study by the Boise State University’s Idaho Public Policy Institute and School of Public Service said 58 percent of surveyed Idahoans say abortion should be legal in the state. 

Currently, state law says an abortion can only be performed in case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. Other medical complications makes the law vague for medical personnel, and confusing for pregnant patients who need help with their health care. Some complications, especially in older women, may not mean death but it may mean stroke, heart attack or another debilitating issue. 

The June 27 U.S. Supreme Court ruling at least temporarily stays parts of state law, allowing hospital emergency rooms to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother past the six weeks mark. Until then, emergency rooms were flying high-risk patients out of state for their care, the physicians fearful of being prosecuted if they acted in the patient’s best interest at home.

Loss of federal protection in Idaho spurs pregnant patients to plan for emergency air transport

It really begs the question: When will the legislators listen to the will of the people?  

Beyond care for the woman involved, state abortion laws are also doing something possibly unintended: the loss of many physicians in a rural state already struggling with finding adequate medical care.

In the past two years, Idaho has lost 22 percent of all OB-GYN physicians. That is a loss of 40 to 60 physicians between August 2022 and November 2023, said a report by the Idaho Physician Well-Being Collaborative and the Idaho Coalition for Safe Health Care. The report also said half of the state’s 44 counties do not have any practicing obstetricians.

The loss of maternal health care means higher mortality rates and overall poor pregnancy outcomes. Currently, Idaho is the lower 10 percent of the country in maternal health care, the exodus of physicians is only increasing problems.

The ripple effect also goes on to include other physicians, meaning overall health care in the state is suffering. If people cannot get access to health care, they will also leave the state.

Add to this the oxymoron of the state Republican Party coming out against IVF for women who want a family but cannot conceive normally. 

Which does the party want – people who want families or a desire to force people to have children when the result of a non-viable pregnancy is disastrous to the family?

Overall, abortion is a form of health care. Access to safe abortions is not forced upon every woman who becomes pregnant, but it is necessary for some women who – for either a medical or personal reasons – cannot carry a fetus to term.  As the old saying goes, if you do not want abortion, don’t have one.

A new law went into effect on July 1, requiring government boards to record public meetings by video or audio.

The goal is to encourage public participation and provide greater transparency.

House Bill 890 drew some opposition at the state legislature last year, but it looks like boards around Montana have found reasonably priced equipment and are ready to post those meetings online.

Some boards such as the Yellowstone County Commission have already been posting recordings of regular meetings and discussions.

“It’s a right for everybody to be able to see what happened,” said Commissioner Don Jones, R- Yellowstone County. “And you know what we were talking about and our thought process.”

Jones supports the idea of HB 890 which states in its title that it provides for increased transparency and accountability.

“Our constitution has made it very clear that the Sunshine Laws need to be there to let the public have that opportunity, see what we’re doing,” Jones said.

The Montana Association of Counties (MACO) wanted the requirement to be optional.

“We want to follow the law,” said Commissioner Ross Butcher, Fergus County. “We want to do it appropriately. But when it’s ambiguous, that’s difficult.

Butcher is the MACO president and says it’s not clear what constitutes a meeting.

As chair in Fergus County, he says commissioners have figured out what meetings to record.

“I do think it’s easy enough to just look at it and say, listen, any meeting that you’re going to agenda-dize and follow the steps of an open meeting, then you probably should record it,” Butcher said.

The law applies to the Board of Investments, the public employees retirement board, teachers retirement board, the board of Regents, county commissions, city councils, school boards and county boards of health.

“Concern about the level of distrust and the lack of civility in our public discourse, first off,” said Rep. Brad Barker, R-Carbon County. “Second thing is it supports Montana’s constitutional right to know. And the third is we have the technological means.”

The Canyon Creek school board and the County Water Board of Billings Heights board are among those ready to record meetings.

“I don’t think any of us have a problem with transparency,” Butcher said. “I think it’s a good thing.”

“It should be beneficial if people want to get engaged and I encourage everybody to get engaged in their local government,” Jones said.