If You’re Confused About Idaho’s Abortion Laws, You’re Not Alone

By Dr. Julie Bouchard

If you are confused about what Idaho’s abortion laws mean for women facing a complicated pregnancy, you are not alone.

I am an Idahoan, a Catholic and an obstetrician-gynecologist. For more than 20 years, I practiced at a Catholic hospital, caring for women with high-risk pregnancies who were referred to us from communities across Idaho.

I saw firsthand how quickly a pregnancy can become complicated. A pregnancy that begins normally can suddenly involve severe complications, a serious fetal diagnosis or a threat to a woman’s health. These are not hypothetical situations. They are the difficult realities obstetricians prepare for throughout their careers.

At the hospital where I practiced, difficult cases were reviewed through an ethics process that included physicians, religious leaders and legal counsel. We took our ethical responsibilities seriously. But we also understood something fundamental about medicine: Our responsibility was to care for the patient in front of us.

That is why I find the debate over Proposition 1 confusing.

Catholic medical ethics does not simply require physicians to stand by while a pregnant woman becomes seriously ill. Catholic health care directives permit treatment of a pregnant woman for a serious medical condition when that treatment cannot safely be delayed until the fetus is viable, even when the treatment may result in the loss of the pregnancy.

Idaho law is different.

Under Idaho’s current abortion law, there is an exception when an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. But the law does not provide the same protection when continuing a pregnancy threatens a woman’s health but has not yet reached the point where her death is imminent.

For an obstetrician, that distinction matters enormously.

There are situations in which the medically responsible course is to intervene before a patient is at the brink of death. We practice medicine to prevent catastrophic outcomes, not wait for them.

I worry about what happens when the law inserts itself into that decision.

Physicians are trained to evaluate the individual patient in front of them: her medical history, her pregnancy, her diagnosis, the risks of continuing the pregnancy and the risks of intervention. These decisions can be extraordinarily difficult. They deserve careful medical judgment, informed consent and, when necessary, ethical consultation.

They should not require a physician to wonder whether providing medically appropriate care could result in criminal prosecution.

And this uncertainty has consequences beyond abortion care. Idaho already faces shortages of physicians, including specialists who care for women with complicated pregnancies. When physicians leave or decide not to practice here, every Idahoan feels the consequences. Fewer specialists mean fewer options when a pregnancy becomes complicated and longer distances to care.

As a Catholic and as a physician, I have always taken seriously the obligation to do no harm.

That means caring for the whole patient. It means recognizing the profound moral complexity of pregnancy. And it means trusting doctors and patients to make deeply personal medical decisions together.

That is why I support Proposition 1.

Whatever a person believes about abortion morally, I hope we can agree on something basic: Idaho women facing pregnancy deserve access to physicians who can use their medical judgment to care for them.

I have spent my career caring for women in some of the most difficult moments of their lives. I know how complicated these decisions can be.

They should remain between a patient and her doctor, not be dictated by politicians. Keep government out of the exam room.

Dr. Julie K. Bouchard is an Idaho obstetrician-gynecologist. She received her medical degree from Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and has been in practice for more than 20 years. She is the mother of two adult children.