On Tuesday, six Idaho university professors and two teachers’ unions that work across the University of Idaho, Boise State University, and Idaho State University filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge the No Public Funds for Abortion Act (NPFAA), which makes it a crime punishable with up to 14 years in prison to use public funds to “promote” or “counsel in favor of” abortion. In practice, that means that the NPFAA prohibits teaching, discussion, and even research and scholarship about abortion at publicly funded institutions, including public universities.
The Fight For Abortion Rights has Reached New Heights
This has altered professors’ lessons plans, including one professor who has “removed an entire module from her bioethics course that covered abortion,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and the lead attorney on the case. Kim has also heard from professors who are “declining to pursue research into abortion or abortion-related topics,” including maternal mortality. (In June, Idaho ended its maternal mortality review committee, months after a rural hospital shuttered its entire labor and delivery department as a consequence of state abortion laws.) While NPFAA first took effect in 2021, like other anti-abortion laws in the state, Kim told Jezebel that it’s had an especially chilling impact post-Roe.
According to the plaintiffs, the NPFAA violates both the First and 14th Amendments. It violates the First Amendment rights of faculty, the suit argues, because it broadly criminalizes any academic speech that may be interpreted as favorable to abortion. And it violates the 14th Amendment as it’s unconstitutionally vague and fails to define the terms “promote” or “counsel in favor of.”
Advertisement
In September, a letter from the University of Idaho to its faculty warned that teaching about abortion in class or even providing condoms “for purposes of birth control” (and not merely “for the purpose of helping prevent the spread of STDs”) could result in criminal charges. The letter, shared with Jezebel, stated that adherence to these new rules is necessary because it’s not clear what will or won’t land someone in prison in post-Roe Idaho. The state maintains several extreme anti-abortion laws, including the NPFAA and another law that makes it a felony to advertise contraception and abortion. In the September letter, the University of Idaho emphasized that its zealous new rules stemmed from uncertainty: “Since violation is considered a felony, we are advising a conservative approach here,” it states at one point, continuing: “Academic freedom is not a defense to violation of law, and faculty…must themselves remain neutral on the topic and cannot conduct or engage in discussions in violation of these prohibitions without risking prosecution.”
With the NPFAA, “the lack of clarity…exacerbates the chilling effect of the law, because when folks are unclear as to what’s prohibited, they’re going to steer clear of anything, especially when really harsh criminal penalties are at stake,” Kim said. “It naturally makes professors all the more fearful of what they can or can’t say in the classroom.”
The suit filed this week is specific to NPFAA, but Kim notes that, with the other laws, including the state’s aforementioned criminalization of merely advertising birth control for pregnancy prevention, Idaho has a statewide problem with policing speech where reproductive rights are concerned. Earlier this year, the state became the first in the nation to criminalize so-called “abortion trafficking”—that is, helping minors travel to access abortion care and providing them with information about abortion. And between blocking minors’ access to information about reproductive care and public universities barring classroom discussion of abortion, young people, in particular, are facing the brunt of the consequences.
Due to NPFAA, Kim expressed concern that students “won’t receive a vital political education about the issue of our time.” Similarly, in a press release shared with Jezebel, Martin Orr, president of the Idaho Federation of Teachers said the law “makes reasoned discussion impossible” in classrooms. Orr continued, “How can we teach about U.S. society without addressing abortion—one of the defining cultural and political issues of the day?”
Representatives for the University of Idaho, Idaho State University, and Boise State University didn’t immediately respond to Jezebel’s request for comment about the NPFAA’s impacts on their campuses.
Advertisement
In addition to the horrific ripple effects the fall of Roe has inflicted on the healthcare system, it’s also been catastrophic for free speech. In South Carolina, some lawmakers want to criminalize sharing information about self-managed abortion. Earlier this month, the ACLU and ACLU of Alabama filed a suit to prevent that state from prosecuting providers who help refer patients to out-of-state abortion care. Texas lawmakers introduced a bill to require internet providers to block websites that provide information on abortion. Surveillance, censorship, and criminalization—in our hospitals, homes, and certainly, our campuses—go hand-in-hand with the erosion of reproductive rights.
BOISE— Several changes are coming to the Idaho Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on July 1 as new legislation takes effect. These changes will improve customer service and offer more options to Idahoans.
Driver’s License and ID Cards
Customers who are eligible to renew their driver’s license online will get a $5 discount for completing the transaction online.
The requirements for getting a free identification card (ID) for voting have been reduced. Legislation has removed the rule that applicants must not have had a valid driver’s license for 6 months before applying for the free ID.
Commercial Drivers and Vehicles
Commercial drivers will now be able to get a commercial driver’s license (CDL) for eight years. The previous limit for CDLs was four years. CDLs will also be checked against the National Drug and Alcohol Clearing House.
DMV will now issue two-year weighted registrations for commercial and non-commercial vehicles up to 60,000 lbs. The previous limit was one year.
License Plates
Idaho will offer a Space Force Plate to eligible customers.
All Purple Heart recipients will be able to get a Purple Heart plate for free. Previously the fee exemption only applied to disabled Purple Heart recipients.
Legislation also created a Gadsden Flag “Don’t Tread on Me” plate. Plate sales will help fund educational grants for firearms safety training. While the legislation goes into effect on July 1, per the timeline included in the law, plates will be made available by January 1, 2025.
Driver’s Education
Parents in rural school districts or districts without driver’s education programs will be able to teach the on-the-road portion of driver’s ed. Parents must keep a log of drive time and skills learned. Students will complete the classroom driver’s ed course through the Idaho Digital Learning Alliance (IDLA). More information is available from the Idaho Department of Education.
Other
The definition of “resident” to get a vehicle registration, title, license, or identification card has been changed from 90 days to 30 days. This does not change the definition of resident for voting purposes.
If an owner wants to sell a vehicle that has no active registration, they can get up to two 30-day temporary registrations for the purpose of selling the vehicle.
Great news for travelers who work and play in the Teton Valley. After a massive rockslide closed Highway 22 over Teton Pass three weeks ago, the Wyoming Department of Transportation has reopened the pass.
RELATED | Teton Pass reopens with interim detour after major road collapse
I asked Stephanie Harsha from W-DOT what their geologists are saying about the cause of the slide. “It was what our geologists called a perfect storm, so the weather is a big factor with the warming temperatures, and they warm up 20 degrees and with it not cooling off at night the ground just saturated it.”
It was not only important to get the pass open for the busy Fourth of July weekend, but also for the commuters from Victor and Driggs Idaho to get work in Jackson. “It was a big impact to their daily lives I heard people saying it was costing hundreds of dollars a week because of the detour.”
Advertisement
Harsha mentioned they received a lot of help from I.T.D. in getting the popular pass open.
“Together with our stakeholders, partners, contractors, and community advocates, we were able to accomplish this major feat in a matter of weeks – despite expectations that it would take months, or even years – all while keeping safety paramount,” said John Eddins, WYDOT District 3 Engineer. “Of course, we have so many to thank for this achievement.”
WASHINGTON (BP) – In a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sent the case of Idaho and Moyle v. U.S. back to the Ninth Circuit Court in a ruling released, June 27. The case involves a conflict between state law and the Biden Administration’s use of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
“At the heart of the case is the wild assertion by the Biden Administration that abortion is healthcare. Instead of dismantling that argument and protecting lives, the Court punted,” said Brent Leatherwood, Ethics & Religious Liberty (ERLC) president.
“We agree with Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch that any perceived conflict here is the result of the federal government’s novel approach to EMTALA. These justices would have moved forward with ruling on the merits of the case––and the Court should have done so,” he said.
The “unsigned order from the justices leaves in place an order by a federal judge in Idaho that temporarily blocks the state from enforcing its abortion ban, which carves out exceptions only to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest, to the extent that it conflicts with a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. That 1986 law requires emergency rooms in hospitals that receive Medicare to provide ‘necessary stabilizing treatment” to patients who arrive with an “emergency medical condition,’” according to Amy Howe at scotusblog.com.
Advertisement
Leatherwood said the ERLC will continue to work to support the state law in the case.
According to the ERLC, “While Idaho’s law is allowed to remain in effect in the meantime, it is limited by a decision from the lower court permitting abortion when the health of the woman is deemed at serious risk, and continuing litigation will resolve a lack of clarity on what that terminology means.”
Leatherwood called the Biden Administration action a means to “radically reinterpret laws meant to save lives.”
Lawyers for the Biden Administration argued the law caused confusion between the state’s law prohibiting abortion and the federal regulation mandating physicians perform an abortion in a case when the mother’s health is deemed to be at emergency risk.
“I am disappointed that SCOTUS has not rejected the Biden administration’s blatant attempt to hijack a law that protects mothers and babies. Throughout my 30-year career, EMTALA has never confused me or my obstetric peers when providing emergency care, especially considering 90% of obstetricians do not perform elective abortions,” said Ingrid Skop, an OB-GYN who also serves as the vice president and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Advertisement
Pro-life advocates believe some women are manipulating the federal policy to receive an abortion in Idaho despite the state law.
“I have always – before Dobbs, and since– been able and willing to intervene if a pregnancy complication threatened my patient’s life, and every state pro-life law allows us to act. Forcing doctors to end an unborn patient’s life by abortion in the absence of a threat to his mother’s life is coercive, needless and goes against our oath to do no harm,” she said.
According to the ERLC, “The case will return to the Ninth Circuit with the injunction from the lower court once more in effect, where the court will hear the case on the merits and proceed, essentially, as if the Supreme Court had never taken up the case. This case or other litigation raising these underlying questions will likely return to the Supreme Court in coming terms.”
