Sarah Johnson-Stop Prop 1 campaign director

0:00Here we have Idaho is sponsored by Tom Luna and Victor Miller. Welcome to Here We Have Idaho. A local show focused on celebrating Idaho and all it makes Idaho great. Here we have Idaho will highlight important issues and events that impact Idaho citizens and families. Each week we will visit with those people who are writing Idaho's story and keeping the spirit of Idaho alive and well. Just like our state song says, there's truly one state in this great land of hours where ideals can be realized. The pioneers made it so for you and me, the legacy will always provide. Here are your hosts, Victor Miller and Tom Luna. Welcome to another episode of Here We Have Idaho. You're listening to KSPD 790 AM 94.5 FM on your radio dial. We also have a Facebook page called Here We Have Idaho.

1:02We also have a Apple podcast. It's called Here We Have Idaho. And here is here we have Idaho's co-host Tom Luna. I'm Victor Miller. Hi Tom. Hey Victor. How are you doing? Things going well today. Everything goes cool and down. Yeah, it was like 51 degrees this morning out in Canyon County. That was it. Yeah. And then we have some potential rain coming we could use the rain. And we can use the rain. Tom we've made a pledge over the last 7 weeks and the 7 weeks to come. Yes. Only 7 weeks. Only 7 weeks. Think about this, we go ahead finish. We want to have someone who's on our show that talks about propositions and why everyone has to vote no on that. vote no yes. And now you have to show up to do that. And then we're also trying to meet with a candidate every week too as we bring it in. And today we are going to be addressing the prop one. This will be our seventh show on it. Believe it or not. And so we're halfway to our goal. That's right. And we know we're at that point where people are now starting to pay attention

2:07and as the closer we get to November 3rd more and more people will pay attention. So there might be some redundancy and what we share. But this is so important for people to get the message. And if they have no other reason then to go to the polls on November 3rd it's to go and vote no on this on proposition one. And absentee ballots will be coming out soon. And you've got early voting. So it's it's closer than seven weeks. There you go. So today Tom we have we're really grateful to have Sarah Johnson with us. Yep. And Sarah is the campaign director for a stop prop one. Yes. To extreme for Idaho. And she knows a little bit about this topic. Tom because she helped fight this very cause in Florida where they were to go. Successfully beat it back. Yeah. And there and we're just grateful to have Sarah join us today on here we have I know. Hi Sarah. Hi. Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure to join you. Yeah. So here you are. You're like a veteran on the on this issue. Yeah. Maybe tell people a little bit about about why this issue in particular. And why now you're joining the cause and to beat prop one here in Idaho after being it in Florida.

3:23Absolutely. So I think a lot of people feel like man is this issue this prop one unique to Idaho and it is not ever since the overturning of Roe v Wade in the dobs decision in 2022. Pro abortion initiatives have been on the ballot in 12 different states. And and one of those was Florida and we were the first state to defeat it on election nine in 2024. Can you just highlight the fact so people in Idaho know how important this is that 90% of the time the abortionists have won in this fight. Yes, absolutely. And they're completely committed to spending money in big way. So in 2024 across all 10 states where it was on the ballot. They spent $240 million in Florida alone. They spend $120 million. They are so committed to in trying to this really stream abortion initiative through the ballot initiative process. And so it's not a surprise to me that we're seeing it here in Idaho simply because Idaho has a process. How much money was spent against in those states. Do you have any idea? If not tell us how much was spent against it in Florida. Yeah.

4:33I've done the research and I don't have the math in front of me, but I know in Florida we spent between 30 and $40 million. And we were successful in defeating it. It got 57% of the vote with 43 voting against it, which in Florida is failure because we have a 60% cut off. So you were outspend four and a half to five times. That's the point. Yeah. Okay. So let's talk a little bit about the language in proposition one. Now people think this is a citizens initiative that this was brought by volunteers because volunteers from Idaho are the ones who brought it wasn't paid circulation. So people may think, oh, this is unique to Idaho. This must be Idaho language in this. This must be Idaho's idea. Is that only Idaho needs this right because of? Yeah. Is that true? Have we seen this act this play before? We've seen this play before and the language that is actually enshrined and to state statute if it passes is different than what you read on the ballot. But the short ballot title, this shortest summary of it is a measure creating right to abortion before fetus viability and post viability to protect health, right to privacy, healthcare provider liability protections.

5:47And if that has that been used that those that language, those concept, have they been used in these other 12 states? Yes, absolutely. This reproductive freedom and privacy act, those words are like sunshine and rainbows for voters. I mean, they just pull really high. But when you dig into it, it hides really, I would say sinister policies. There's some really extreme stuff that they hide in the actual legal language of the initiative that voters are typically using. That voters are typically not supportive of even though we love freedom and privacy. So let's talk a bit about your personal like, why is this so personal for you? Like, why why does this issue resonate so strongly with you? I really like defeating bad ideas. And I think we can do that at the ballot box when voters know what's in the language. I did the opposite of every other political kid who wants to work in politics. I started out in Tallahassee watching the policy process. And I thought, you know what, if we elect good people, we don't have to spend as much on lobbying to get them to do the right thing. So I went from working in Tallahassee to working out, which is the capital in Florida, to working out in the field, trying to get good candidates elected and then really got interested in initiatives and had the opportunity in in Florida to work on perhaps the most consequential, which was amendment four in Florida, the abortion.

7:11So I got really passionate about talking to voters about issues. And that's how we ended up here. Fantastic. So I have one question then and I know Tom's got a ton as well. But let's talk about the polling. What was the polling in Florida before the effort began? And what was the final kind of final count there? And why did it change either way? Yeah. So they started polling in Florida. Yes, on this really extreme abortion initiative was polling at 69%, which was almost 10% above passage in Florida. And then we began to litigate the details. And the no side was 20 and the rest was undecided, something like that. Yeah. And so you were 49 points underwater. Yes, we were very behind. But we started litigating the details of the initiative. In Florida, very similar to this initiative in Idaho, it would have removed parental consent for a minor's abortion. It would have changed who could have performed an abortion in the state.

8:17It had really vague viability language, which would have allowed abortion. And since viability doesn't matter essentially in the way that they wrote it because it was so extreme. And those are a couple of the similarities that we see across all of these ballot initiatives across the country. But as we began to litigate those details with voters, that's how we were able to get it down to just 57%, which was not passing in Florida. So think about this. The yes side Tom lost 12 points and the no side to defeat this, again, 23 points. That's a lot of that's a lot of fine work to liticate that case. Tom, maybe you want to go into the short ballot, tight a little bit like blow by blow. Yeah, let's talk about it. And folks, if you're just joining us, you're listening to here we have Idaho and KSPD and our guest today is Sarah Johnson. And we're talking about proposition one, which is the attempt to completely eliminate all laws in Idaho that pertain to abortion, parental rights and notification, Dr. Qualifications.

9:25All those are gone. And it replaces it with the language of this proposition. So let's talk about a couple of those. And Sarah knows this. The number one issue in for me is parental notification because you hear me bring this up over and over and over. There's other things we'll talk about today. But let's talk specifically about what happens to the laws that are currently on the books in Idaho when it comes to parental notification. And what prop one language says about who has the right to an abortion. Yeah. So Idaho's law right now involves parents and a minor's abortion procedure. That's that's really important. I think that's something that Idahoans believe in, much like you said you do. But this initiative grants a broad right to reproductive privacy to every person. And that term every person is not defined. So it's not limited to adults. So we're creating if if proposition one is attempting to create a right to the right. A right to privacy for minors against their parents, involving them in a really important part of their lives. And it's just heartbreaking when you think about it. And this initiative also says there's one line in here. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed in favor of reproductive freedom and privacy and are intended to control over every other section of Idaho code.

10:47That's really far. And this removing parental involvement would make abortion the only procedure in Idaho that a minor could undergo without our parents. Let me read you a language from the proposition because I've heard some people when they realize the predicament that the proposition language creates for them that it removes parental notification. They'll say, oh no, no, it's just when it comes to this. This is what it says not with this is the language from the proposition, not our summary of it, right. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary. So any other law that currently exists in Idaho, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, contrary, every person has the right to reproductive freedom and privacy, including but not limited to the right to make decisions about abortion. And there's nowhere in the proposition where it mentions minors or children or parental notification about woman or woman.

11:56That's another issue. But you so just do a little bit deeper dive on that specific language. And it sounds like it's familiar language to you because it's the same thing you heard in Florida. Yeah, it's it's it's taking this term every person has a right to something. Well, I love that. I am all for rights and freedoms. But the really sinister underbelly of that is man, this actually removes laws that protect children in the state of Idaho. That is too far. That is too extreme. And what we see with these extreme initiatives is they they paint really flowery language that hides a really, really sinister agenda. And they don't want to advertise that and they don't want you talking about it. But when you litigate the details, that is right there hidden in plain sight. And Sarah, the people who wrote this, they chose these words. Nobody gave them a framework that they had to follow. They could put whatever they wanted. They could put whatever language, whatever descriptions.

12:57But it's not there. They could have easily added it before they sent this to the voters, but they didn't. This is not an accident. You know, if the three of us sat here in rota state statute on the back of a napkin, we'd probably have to redo it. That's not what happened. This language was drafted. It was redrafted. It was discussed amongst themselves. Probably get some focus groups. They did some focus groups. And then they it's been litigated by the Supreme Court as well. Like it's not an accident that it looks like this. It's not an accident that it intentionally is absent of any parental involvement. And it's not an accident that it has that language that this is to control over every other state statute. So let's just play this out then. And then Vickal has some more questions. But let's just play this out. If this becomes law and a young teenage girl finds herself in this very traumatic situation. A mistake that's easily made, right? But a traumatic situation. And she's looking for counseling. She's looking for options. She doesn't know where to turn.

14:02Who can then influence her without her parents never even knowing? Well, that leads us to another really broad definition of healthcare provider in this initiative. So a healthcare provider is just broadly a licensed person or an entity that provides healthcare or medical treatment. There's vagueness there that is intentional. And we the answer to that is I don't know. So we have a healthcare entity. Yeah, we don't know. And that's something that they should have. Yes, Planned Parenthood could be a entity. Yeah, we have no idea how broadly they wanted this interpreted, except that they also said when it goes before a court of law, it is to be liberally construed in favor of abortion rights and abortion expansion. That was their intention when they drafted this so broadly. Hey, we're just joining us. You listen to here. We have Idaho with Dr. Miller and Tom Luna. You listen to KSPD 790 AM 94.5 FM. We've got Sarah Johnson.

15:06Here was the campaign director for the state effort called Stop Prop 1 2 Extreme for Idaho. She went through this labor pains of it in Florida. And now you are trying to accomplish the same feet here in Idaho. And we hope that it's pulling a little better than it was in Florida to start for sure. Let's go through your the the short ballot title. Like everyone says how disgusting the long ballot title because the guts are all there. But yeah, there's a lot just in the short ballot title. Yeah, the first thing this says is it's a measure creating a right to abortion before feed his viability. Yep. So that sounds like okay, sounds like the heartbeat bill. Sounds like something we've heard before. But what really is this? Well, on face value, we think, oh, viability means 21 to 24 weeks. That's when my baby can survive if it has help. But they specifically intentionally rewrote the definition of viability in here to mean when a baby can survive on its own without any extraordinary medical measures, which pushes that line of viability way beyond 24, 1 to 24 weeks.

16:28And it means that even Nick you care could be considered extraordinary medical measures, which means that a baby who could be born and go into Nick you would be considered not viable. So when you read that term, when you read that phrase with that term in mind, measure creating right to abortion before fetus viability and that viability is without any medical help. Wow, that is way too far. It's beyond the pale and it's beyond the reasonableness of most voters, even if you are pro choice, if you are pro life, this initiative is not for you. But if you are pro choice, this initiative is probably also, yep, not for you. So remind people from a medical standpoint, yet it's too extreme for I know that's why it's in your title. Name remind people in general, when how far along can a baby be where it's normally considered it will be viable outside the womb, how many weeks into the if a baby can have medical support, it could survive 21 to 24 weeks, but a baby without any medical support.

17:35I would say that's and I'm not a medical professional, but we're looking at 36 or 37 weeks, I would guess. Okay, so this is a fully formed, this is late term abortion. You do the math, the whole point, the whole point, seven or eight months is what we're looking at. Okay, so that's saying, before that point, there is a likelihood that there will be some medical support of some kind, might be the NICU, might be oxygen, might be food, maybe surgery, whatever. But this is very, very late, and this is included in the short ballot title kind of exposes that. But the crazy thing is there's an opportunity for someone to abort someone, even after that, late term abortions. And because the second part says, and post viability to protect health, what does this mean? Well, it is written in, I'm going to use the very technical term, it's written in mushy terms. It's just mushy.

18:41This, this protect health is, it's got no structure to it. It really is written as though it's intended to be broadly construed and sort of just mean everything falls under a health. And to be clear, this right to abortion before fetus viability, that's for any reason as quickly as you want it. There's, it's not like we're only performing abortions if the mom's life or health is at stake. This is abortion without any restrictions as late as the seventh or eighth month. And then even beyond that with health exemptions that are broad and mushy. Right. So for example, it says to protect a patient's life, which is already part of the defensive life act here in Idaho, right? It's rape, incest, and life of the mother, but also says places the health of a pregnant patient in serious jeopardy causes in serious impairment to bodily function and causes serious dysfunction of any bodily organ.

19:41But the bottom line is those may not be life threatening. You can have the child and still be able to deal with these health concerns. The problem is it doesn't really define what health means. Yeah. Yeah. That is not part of the definition. Absolutely. And that's the issue is that it just leaves the interpretation just too wide, right? Yeah. And it's it's way too late for that too. We're talking about a post viability health exception, which means that this baby could survive on its own without extraordinary medical care. But even then you have access to abortion under that health definition. And the crazy thing Tom is, and I know you'll want to finish up on the other elements of the short ballot title. But another thing that is troubling is that it says notwithstanding any other provision of the law to the contrary again back to Tom's point. Every person has the right to reproductive freedom, but it also says including but not limited to abortion, childcare, contraception, fertility, miscarriage, prenatal, pregnancy, postpartum.

20:46And that's the problem is when when you don't define things and you leave none of it to, but not limited to. And then you say you're supposed to interpret this with the most, you know, the tie always goes to the runner. Yeah. Like if there's baseball analogy, right? Yeah. This is very troubling. It is. It's it's and this is not unusual. We see this in initiatives across the country. They are going through the effort and spending potentially millions of dollars. We know they've already raised nearly two, maybe more than that now. And they they want to get everything that they want and they were really greedy when the pen was in their hand and they wrote this and they said including but not limited to tie goes to the runner. It's really poorly written and it's just asking too much. You know, having been in the legislative world serving in office, that one phrase not limited to that is a term of art, right?

21:46And when you're writing legislation, you have to be careful because words mean things and if people want to slip something in but they can't get it done in the original law, then they'll put things in there that we all agree to but say but not limited to knowing that they can come back later. And under that one phrase, they can you know, they can slip something in that they would not have gotten in the original ballot. Folks, if you're just joining us again, want to remind you you're listening to here. We have Idaho and Kspd with Tom Loon and Vic Miller and we are visiting with Sarah Johnson and she is with the stop prop one campaign and doing incredible work and we're so grateful to have you here. Bring your expertise in all. I want to we've got about five or six more minutes. I want to spend a little bit of time on the other real concerning part. There's many concerning parts in the proposition. But the one when it comes to healthcare providers currently talk to us about what Idaho law currently requires and what would change of this proposition were to pass?

22:55Well, Idaho law currently requires an abortion to be performed by a physician. That means that this is between a woman and her doctor. And for a long time, we heard abortion extremists say this decision should be left between a woman and her doctor, but this initiative specifically wrote out the doctor. It says that you have a right to reproductive freedom in consultation with your healthcare provider, which is determined that a term that's defined as meaning a licensed person or an entity that provides healthcare medical treatment. And that's their language. They have a list of definitions attached to the proposition that we're going to vote on and this is their definition of a healthcare provider. This is their definition. It's so wide open. It couldn't perform an abortion. Yeah, absolutely. And when you hear that term as a voter, you think of someone in a white coat with a stethoscope around their neck. That's not necessarily who's performing your abortion here. It could be someone who is just staff at an abortion clinic. And so this takes the safety requirements that Idaho has right now and just wipes them away.

24:04It's really sinister. And I think it's dangerous. And it puts women's health at risk. Yeah, it does. Well, Sarah, you've been incredible. What you've shared with us. And again, grateful that you're here helping to steer this effort. I want to spend the last few minutes and just have you share with us what we can expect. This isn't your first rodeo. Yeah. You've seen this. You've analyzed. You lived this in Florida. You've analyzed what's happened in these other states. What can we expect over the next seven weeks as Idahoans as we as we now are the front line of this battle to protect the unborn? I would say you should expect to hear exaggerations and outright lies about what Idaho's abortion laws are. That's something that we heard over and over again in Florida. What lies specifically were you hearing in Florida? In Florida, we were hearing that doctors couldn't treat women under our laws. And that's not true. Yeah, because the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled on Idaho's current law. And they talk about what doctors can and can't do.

25:08It's far more expansive. Idaho's laws allow doctors to intervene far more than what the opposition is saying. And the agency for health care administration in Florida sent out an advisory to everyone with any kind of health care provider license and said you can treat women. And so Florida had to make that really clear. I would also expect to see spending coming in. There are only four abortion initiatives across the country this year. If I were an abortion extremist and I could spend money anywhere, they might come choose to make a point out of Idaho. And we know that there are 501C3, at least one organization that's spending money to talk about Idaho's abortion law and they're spending half a million dollars. So I'm going to be specific. There's this video that's out there of a couple that apparently had this tragic experience. And I think their personal story is tragic. Anybody that loses a child during pregnancy, it's traumatic. But there's this story being out there that spins it into some reason that they blame a lot of their pain and suffering on Idaho's laws.

26:17We know that's not true, but that ad is out there and who's paying for that ad. Well, we don't know because it's a charitable organization that was set up earlier this year, conveniently the same year that there is an abortion initiative on the books or on the ballot. And they've spent, we've tracked about half a million dollars between radio, TV and media. And where's that money coming from? They don't have to report it. Yeah, because it's charity. That's right. And so I would not be surprised to see more of that filing into Idaho. And this initiative is not representative of Idaho, but you will have people from outside of here trying to convince you that it is. And Tom, by the way, the case side versus members of the Idaho Board of Medicine, our attorney general said the Idaho Supreme Court told doctors in 2023 they have the broad clinical judgment to provide necessary care. That's from our attorney general, Raul Labrador. Dr. Sive did not educate himself on what Idaho law permits, which is required of every doctor in Idaho.

27:20His patients suffered from his lack of understanding, not because of our laws. And he life flight it, we think three or four couples. Three or four couples out of the way you never read the law on self. Right. Yeah. So what you're saying is that the doctors should know that the law protects them. Yeah, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. And that's a story that's been on TV. Yeah. So let's talk about never let the truth get in the way of a good story. What can we anticipate from the press? They will take the other side and they will say viability means 21 to 24 weeks, even though that we know that is not the case under this initiative. No, hardly. Yeah. And we've already seen a couple articles written that and one of them was even as crazy as saying prop one is not is not good. But vote yes, because then that will hopefully force the legislature to do certain things, right? Yep. And that's really not the way that you write laws. So if you would like to help us defeat this. Yeah. So where should we go to get the truth? Because you're not going to get it from the press. Yep. Go to stop prop one dot org in our Facebook page is also stop prop one. We are on X and we are on Instagram as well.

28:26Wonderful. Well, again, Sarah Johnson from stop prop one. Thank you for being here today. We'll we'll continue to circle back with you to learn more. And folks can go to stop prop one dot org. There's a lot of information there. There's information how they can become involved. They can get a yard sign information they can share with their neighbors and friends. Absolutely. Sign up for our emails and like our Facebook page. All right. And the website are the same. Stop prop one. Yes, sir. Thank you guys for prioritizing this. You bet. And Vic is we always do when we wrap up our show. God bless the great state of Idaho. Thank you Sarah Johnson. Thank you for joining us today on here. We have Idaho. We hope you enjoyed today's show and we look forward to visiting with you for a half hour each Wednesday and Friday at 4 p.m. on Kspd 790 a.m. in 94.5 FM. Till next time, God bless the great state of Idaho. Here we have Idaho is sponsored by Tom Luna and Victor Miller.