Frequently Asked Questions
The petition was started by residents of Idaho who are putting their beliefs about what abortion is into action. Abortion is the murder of image bearers of God in the place of the incarnation of Christ – the mother’s womb.
We all share the opinion that our preborn neighbors deserve to have their lives protected by the God ordained arm of our state government, and that we as citizens need to correct oppression and stand up for the rights of our weakest neighbors and see that they receive equal treatment under the law.
Already in Idaho Code 18-4001, murder is defined to include the killing of an embryo or a fetus in the womb. If a father kills a preborn child, he is prosecuted for murder. But, there is an exception to prosecution for mothers and abortionists in 18-4016. So, statute already says abortion is murder, but that it can not be prosecuted as such! This initiative provides for the prosecution of abortion as murder.
We welcome the participation of all Idahoans who want to protect the babies of Idaho and defend the unalienable right to life that is established by our Creator and recognized in our state constitution.
You must be an Idaho resident and at least 18 years of age to circulate the petition. We welcome all Idahoans, people of all faiths who care about the rights of the preborn, to participate in the circulation to recognize the right to life granted by Almighty God
This is a petition of we, the people of Idaho.
Excessive lobbying – Substantial part test. Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.
Excessive lobbying – Expenditure test . . Under the expenditure test, the extent of an organization’s lobbying activity will not jeopardize its tax-exempt status, provided its expenditures, related to such activity, do not normally exceed an amount specified in section 4911. This limit is generally based upon the size of the organization and may not exceed $1,000,000, as indicated in the table below.
|If the amount of exempt purpose expenditures is:||Lobbying nontaxable amount is:|
|≤ $500,000||20% of the exempt purpose expenditures|
|>$500,00 but ≤ $1,000,000||$100,000 plus 15% of the excess of exempt purpose expenditures over $500,000|
|> $1,000,000 but ≤ $1,500,000||$175,000 plus 10% of the excess of exempt purpose expenditures over $1,000,000|
|>$1,500,000 but ≤ $17,000,000||$225,000 plus 5% of the exempt purpose expenditures over $1,500,000|
No. Retroactive enactment of laws is a violation of the US and Idaho constitutions, nor would that ever be our desire.
The goal of this legislation is not to punish women and imprison mothers for long prison terms. Rather, it is to establish equal justice for the preborn – the same as the born enjoy. It is to correct injustice and oppression of a whole class of people – the preborn.
The new law would go into effect after it passes and only apply from its effective date forward. On the effective date, abortion clinics would close in Idaho, and all chemical weapons of mass destruction would be removed from all pharmacies and store shelves throughout Idaho. Women would hear and know that killing their preborn children carries the same penalty that killing their born children does now. With the severe penalty of a first degree murder penalty, the new law would act as a powerful deterrent to effectively restrain the evil of abortion.
We expect that the new law would essentially shut down abortion in Idaho and that there would be very few who would ever be prosecuted under this new law. The reason we are confident of the deterrent effect is that while there are presently 1,751 abortions a year by Idaho mothers because they are not currently prosecuted, there are only about 25 murders of born people in Idaho, most likely because it is such a serious criminal offense and because the culture has been taught through good criminal law that it is not right to kill born people. Our abolition petition will re-train the culture that it is also not right and not moral to kill preborn humans.
There have been many questions about why this prohibition on abortion must include the nomenclature of first degree murder or why the prohibition must be by a murder statute.
If it was currently legal for men to rape women, is there a way to ban rape and enact a deterrent to prolific rape without holding the men accountable and without having severe criminal penalties as a means to justice and to act as a deterrent to the unwanted behavior? If there was a speed limit but there were never citations issued nor criminal fines, would the general public adhere to the speed limit? In the same way, how is it possible to ban and deter a serious criminal activity without having the violation of the ban incur a severe criminal penalty? Also, if we treat the murder of the born in a particular manner, it seems that to establish equal justice for the preborn, we must treat their victim status in like manner to the born.
Finally, all murders in Idaho code currently designate a first or second murder degree. According to the current section 18-4003:
(a) All murder which is perpetrated by means of poison, or lying in wait, or torture, when torture is inflicted with the intent to cause suffering, to execute vengeance, to extort something from the victim, or to satisfy some sadistic inclination, or which is perpetrated by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing is murder of the first degree.
(b) Any murder of any peace officer, executive officer, officer of the court, fireman, judicial officer or prosecuting attorney who was acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty, and was known or should have been known by the perpetrator of the murder to be an officer so acting, shall be murder of the first degree.
(c) Any murder committed by a person under a sentence for murder of the first or second degree, including such persons on parole or probation from such sentence, shall be murder of the first degree.
(d) Any murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, aggravated battery on a child under twelve (12) years of age, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, kidnapping or mayhem, or an act of terrorism, as defined in section 18-8102, Idaho Code, or the use of a weapon of mass destruction, biological weapon or chemical weapon, is murder of the first degree.
(e) Any murder committed by a person incarcerated in a penal institution upon a person employed by the penal institution, another inmate of the penal institution or a visitor to the penal institution shall be murder of the first degree.
(f) Any murder committed by a person while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution is murder of the first degree.
(g) All other kinds of murder are of the second degree.
While the abortion abolition initiative petition could have modified section 18-4003 to specify a degree of murder for abortion, it is just as valid to specify that degree in the new section 18-4018. Also, since abortion is typically a planned act, it meets the definition of “premeditated”, which typically qualifies as a first degree murder in Idaho code.
In American and Idaho law, there is “prosecutorial discretion”. Government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.
The natural effect of prosecutorial discretion is that not all parties involved in an illegal abortion would necessarily be treated the same. For example, if a step-father raped his 13 year old step-daughter and forced her to get an illegal abortion in order to cover up his crime, it is likely the 13 year old girl would not be charged with anything, and the father and the abortionist would both be charged with a first degree homicide and possibly other crimes.
See also Idaho Code 18-201, which essentially says there are certain persons who never would be charged with a crime. For example, if someone is forced to commit a crime because they are threatened by someone else and believe their life to be in danger if they don’t commit that crime at the behest of another, Idaho statutes specifically absolve them of culpability for any crime they committed under that duress.
Our petition classifies the intentional killing of a pre-born human being as murder. This would not classify life-saving medical intervention that inadvertently leads to the death of a child as murder. In a case where the utmost care was given to protect both the life of the mother and the life of her pre-born child, but where the pre-born child did not survive, the situation would be deemed a tragedy, not a murder.
The original Hippocratic oath, circa 400 B.C. said “I will either give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”
C. Everett Koop, who was the Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan was a pediatric surgeon for decades. He said “When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
The Association of Pro-Life Physicians also contends that doctors never have to willfully kill an unborn child in an abortion to save a woman’s life. “When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim,” according to the doctors association. “If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.”