Changing Policy by Definition
This legislative session has proven to be a battle over definitions in our laws and has the potential to cause dangerous outcomes. Let me show you the prime examples that have been introduced in the legislature this session.
SB 1220: Domestic Terrorist Definition Change
First, there is SB 1220 which aims to change the definition of “domestic terrorist” in Idaho law so it only includes those perpetrators with ties to a foreign entity. By making this change, those who commit terrorist acts who are homegrown threats – like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski or the Aryan Nations – cannot be charged with domestic terrorism under Idaho law. While they can still be charged under federal law, Idaho law would no longer consider them to be terrorists simply because their use of violence to change public policy is not connected to a foreign entity.
The sponsor’s intent was actually to protect free speech rights in situations where somebody attending a school board or city council meeting gets a little out of hand. The bill is intended to prevent that person from being charged with terrorism by an overzealous prosecutor and being labeled a terrorist.
The sponsor has a valid concern and is a good legislator; however, the statutory language being changed by SB 1220 is the Idaho anti-terrorism statute passed in the 1990s in response to the Aryan Nations’ bombings and violent activities. Attorney General Jim Jones (now retired Idaho Supreme Court Justice) worked with activists and business interests in north Idaho, who were tired of the white supremacy movement giving their communities a bad name and threatening their safety, to get Idaho’s anti-terrorism statute passed. They were successful.
There is great risk in changing the definition of domestic terrorist and such a change sends the wrong message to those who have hateful messages to spread. Therefore, I do not support this bill and have voted no on it, and I am proud of that vote. However, it has passed from the Senate to the House and has the potential to pass there as well. Please let House members know you oppose this bill.
HB 400: Embryo to Preborn Child Definition Change
Next, there is HB 400. This bill proposes changing the word embryo to preborn child throughout Idaho law. This has serious consequences for reproductive rights and healthcare. As reported by the Idaho Capital Sun, “Several people who testified told legislators they were concerned that passing the bill into law defining an embryo or fetus as a preborn child could open the door to wrongful death lawsuits or manslaughter charges for women who experience miscarriages or medical providers who discard non-viable embryos.” Luckily, the committee members realized the potential danger for people in this situation and voted to hold the bill in committee. However, it is very likely that we will see other attempts to make similar changes that will make it more difficult for people in our state to get abortions, even in the most dire of circumstances.
I am committed to restoring healthcare choices to the people of Idaho so that women can take care of their health and healthcare workers can do their jobs. Therefore, I oppose this bill.
HB 421: Sex Definition Change
Finally, there is HB 421. This bill proposes changing the legal definition of “sex” as “an individual’s biological sex, either male or female” and making gender a synonym of sex. There is no scientific, medical or other academic basis for this change. This change in definitions also erases trans and intersex people, a group that is already marginalized.
This bill also proposes creating legal definitions of boy, father, girl, and mother. This is concerning as it may cause issues for same-sex parents as it could potentially leave room for discriminatory practices.
What is even more concerning is that of the 15 people who came to testify to the committee for this bill, all of them opposed it and the committee still voted to send the bill to the House floor. The change this bill proposes is neither medically nor scientifically accurate, and it will create hostile environments for some of the most marginalized people in our communities. If this bill reaches the Idaho Senate, I will vote no on it.