Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in August 2023

An Idaho law hits Oregon too

Several times a year for many years, I have crossed the Oregon-Idaho line in each direction, usually on Interstate 84 over the Snake River bridge. In all these years, I’ve never been slowed or stopped at the border, and the only thing that might have caused such an event is the speed limit.

These days, the notion of a checkpoint is becoming increasingly probable, prompted recently by a lawsuit, involving the state of Idaho on the one side and Oregon – plus a batch of other states, including Washington – on the other.

The lawsuit by abortion rights advocates is aimed at Idaho’s law against “abortion trafficking,” or transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. Theoretically, an Idaho law should only affect people in that state. But in the opinion of a long list of state attorneys general, including Oregon’s, it’s not that simple. Oregon’s health care finances and professional and legal liability could be endangered due to the wording of the Idaho bill and its interpretation by that state’s attorney general.

In the last two years, Idaho abortion law has been changing and tightening, and on March 27  Attorney General Raul Labrador answered an inquiry about its scope, implicating state borders in the new legal order: “Idaho law prohibits an Idaho medical provider from either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services or prescribing abortion pills for the woman to pick up across state lines,” he wrote. There are more restrictions, including for any adult (other than parents) to help a minor cross state lines to obtain an abortion.

Labrador later withdrew the letter but hasn’t reversed any of his legal analysis.

This drew, days later, a lawsuit from a Planned Parenthood organization and a group of physicians argued that, “the logic of Attorney General Labrador’s opinion would mean that a health care provider who provides an abortion to an Idaho resident in another state violates Idaho’s abortion ban. The lawsuit asserts that such an interpretation of a state abortion ban is both unprecedented and unconstitutional.”

That implication of other states being held accountable to Idaho’s law drew the attention of attorneys general around the country. On Aug. 2, an amicus brief drafted by Washington Attorney General Rob Ferguson, and co-signed by 19 other attorney’s general including Oregon’s Ellen Rosenblum, took aim at the Idaho law and specified harms it could do to other states, potentially affecting Oregon the most. Those could directly on Oregon.

Rosenblum’s office has specified some of them. Her office said the Idaho abortion laws have led to a drastic increase of abortion patients in nearby states. Washington state saw a 75% increase of Idaho patients obtaining an abortion during a 12-month stretch ending earlier this year. During the first six months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe. v. Wade – during a time when some but not all of Idaho’s restrictive laws were in place – the number of abortions performed in Oregon for out-of-state residents rose nearly 50% over the same six-month period a year earlier, according to Oregon Health Authority statistics, Rosenblum said.

She said this has hurt Oregon health providers’ ability to provide normal timely health care. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee in a letter to his Idaho counterpart, Brad Little, warned that Idaho’s law would likely result in an “increased mortality rate of Idahoan women and girls.”

And the attorney generals’ brief went well beyond health care impact.

A resident of an abortion-rights state, such as Oregon or Washington, would be directly affected once they cross the border, and their health insurers would be affected too: “As the provider of health insurance for state employees and their children, who may be temporarily visiting or residing in Idaho, amici states have a direct financial interest in preventing increased risk to patients and cost of medical care resulting from undue delays or impeded continuity of care.”

Providers of health care cross-licensed across states – as many are – “would reasonably fear Idaho’s apparent reading of its laws, producing a chilling effect on the lawful provision of health care in other states. For example, a health care provider licensed in both Idaho and a neighboring state, such as Washington or Oregon, might be reluctant to provide abortion services in Washington or Oregon for fear of being subjected to licensing enforcement action in Idaho, potentially resulting in the restriction of their Idaho license or the imposition of fines.”

That, in turn, could lead to health care issues, or gaps in health care, for patients even in abortion-rights states.

These ideas and concerns aren’t brand new. Oregon’s Legislature recognized them earlier this year when it passed the recent and highly contentious House Bill 2002 – which is aimed specifically at protecting people in Oregon from the reach of laws from other states. That legislation like Idaho’s has yet to be fully tested in court, however. When two states collide, their cases typically go to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the results can be unpredictable.

People in many states like to think of themselves as siloed, shielded from what another state might do. But what we do tends to affect people beyond us.

Idaho’s new abortions laws ring not only for Idahoans, but for Oregonians as well.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle. Photo Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Doctors for Abortion Action.

Mastering education

Amid all the complaints from parents and activists about what they don’t like in public schools, are there ways forward to deal with the constant uproar and simply improve public education? Are there ways to break through the constant telling, accusations and self-destruction?

Sure. And for one good example of useful general direction, look to the Bonneville School District at Idaho Falls, which is in the middle of trying “mastery based teaching.”

Before you dismiss this as just another education fad - and we’ve seen a river of those over the decades - take a look at what the premise of this one entails, and how it might plug into our difficulties in building sound relationships between school districts and many of their constituents. It could be called revolutionary, gut-level basic, intuitively sensible, and even may stand a chance of bringing educators and parents into closer alignment.

Here is how another state (Connecticut) describes the idea: “With mastery-based learning, all students must demonstrate what they have learned before moving on. Before students can pass a course, move on to the next grade level, or graduate, they must demonstrate that they have mastered the skills and knowledge they were expected to learn. If students fail to meet learning expectations, they are given more support and instruction from teachers, more time to learn and practice, and more opportunities to demonstrate progress.”

From that simple premise a lot of ideas become implicit. For one thing, a high school diploma (for example) would mean more: To obtain one, you have to demonstrate certain abilities and understanding. For another, a lot of work with individual students, who have widely varied ways of learning, is implicit. The traditional default mass-production mode of teaching, in which all students are presumed to learn the same way and at the same rate, leaves many under-educated and others frustrated; closer attention to actual mastery of skills and ideas (emphatically not the same thing as teaching to the test) could do a lot more good. True, lots of good teachers do provide individual help for many students, but the system as a whole isn’t well set up for it on a large scale.

As the Connecticut description put it: “Even though learning expectations and evaluation criteria are consistent, teachers can be given more flexibility in how they teach and students can be given more choice in how they learn. For example, teachers don’t need to use the same textbooks, assignments, and tests - as long as their students learn what they need to learn, teachers can develop new and more creative ways to teach.”

And that part of where parents become an essential part of the equation.

But parents and communities also can get into the ground level of teaching designs under this approach, because the first step in looking at a mastery approach should involve deciding what exactly students should be expected to master, and what other options should be offered. Were we to plan education effectively, we might start by deciding more clearly what the end result should look like. Developing those kinds of expectations are where parental - and community - involvement makes the most sense.

The mastery approach can be developed in a variety of ways, and the Bonneville district is finding its own with initial emphasis on reading and writing. A report in the Idaho Ed News quoted Superintendent Scott  Woolstenhulme: “If your time is fixed, your learning is variable. If you want your learning to be fixed, then you need to have variable time. This means some kids are going to take longer to learn certain things and some are going to learn them more quickly, which is the whole point behind mastery-based learning.”

This approach holds out the promise of producing better educated cohorts of students while bringing parents and communities more fully into the process, and taking better advantage of the skills teachers bring to the table.

Don’t say there aren’t any solutions out there for our public schools. Keep a watch on places like Bonneville. They may surprise you.

 

Persuade

It’s going to be a hot drive down to our state capital tomorrow. But I’m excited to be making it. I got the AC in my old Volkswagen van charged up. It doesn’t blow cold, but it does blow cool.

Martha claims me driving the old VW around is a bit like the guys with the Trump, Let’s Go Brandon flags strapped in the beds of their pickups. She worries the VW pushes their buttons, like their flags push ours.

I shrugged at that, but she does have a point. Bumper stickers, yard signs, what is the purpose of such emblems? Is it to declare our position, thus provoke the opposition? Or is it just a weak attempt to persuade?

I know the flag guy with the pickup that U-turns to tailgate me in town doesn’t persuade me. He provokes my stubbornness. It’s irritating. Maybe that’s his intent.

The vanagon is not my tool for provocation. It just takes me down the road, and then I can sleep in it by the Salmon River on my way back home.

I don’t really like to provoke. I like to persuade.

These written words are my best effort to persuade, and I fear they are pretty weak too. Why read 600 words when there’s a Tik Tok video about cats to watch?

I’m thinking about provoking and persuading because of this upcoming trip to Boise. You see, I’ve been appointed to the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare by our governor. And the Idaho Senate confirmed my appointment. Whew. I thought that might be a hurdle.

We have a meeting in Boise on Thursday. The agenda is public. See if there’s anything there that interests you. Then give me a call. Or if there’s anything else bugging you about the direction or function of the Department of Health and Welfare, let me know.

Mainly I’ve gotten calls about specific services. I can’t really fix much, but it’s good to hear gripes. Sometimes there are trends.

The H&W Board is defined in law . There are seven members, one from each of the seven regions of the state. We are supposed to have political balance, with only four members from one political party.

One of our duties shall be to:

“Advise the director and the governor on department fiscal, policy and administrative matters”.

For an appointed board to advise, there must be a clear understanding of the capabilities, and an even clearer vision for the responsibility. I’m working on those.

But if we as a board are to advise, we will need some consensus, some agreement. That’s where the provocation and persuasion come in. I can’t imagine wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt would persuade my fellow board members. It will take more effort than that.

Further, I hope my dented VW in the parking lot would not provoke. It will be a fun meeting.

I understand we have limited resources to deal with the Health and Welfare needs of our state. My bias is to find effective practices. We have had some significant shifts in how care is provided. It is our job to make sure that care is effective and cost efficient.

Before I head down the road let me leave you with some things to consider.

55,000 Idaho children have lost Medicaid health insurance this year. Approximately 53 of those children will have appendicitis next year. Who pays? Will their parents face bankruptcy? Will the hospital shift the uninsured costs to your bill? Is this how you want things run?

Idaho leads the nation in women incarcerated. The vast majority are in prison or jail for drug offenses. Is this the way we want to treat this problem?

I’ll be thinking of these things as I try to stay cool going to Boise. Wave if you see my blue beat-up van. Stay cool.

 

Gaining from outrage

Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon is fired up, and for good reason. At least, that seems to be the consensus of the party’s faithful.

She and her fellow Republicans, who strongly back former President Trump, are peeved about what appears to be a two-tiered justice system. “Joe Biden’s Department of Justice,” as Moon describes it, has issued a string of indictments against Trump – President Biden’s most likely opponent in next year’s presidential race.

Nothing fishy about that, right?

“Of course, the fake news media have trained their spotlights on Donald Trump, focusing all of their energy on the allegations against him,” Moon says.

And then there’s Hunter Biden, the president’s son who apparently has never taken the silver spoon from his mouth.

“Testimony by Hunter Biden’s former business associate suggests Hunter used his father, during his tenure as vice president, as political influence in his business dealings. And we’ve all seen the video of Joe Biden admitting, in his own words, that he strong-armed a foreign government to fire the prosecutor that was investigating Hunter Biden and his company,” Moon wrote. “We sit and watch the DOJ give preferential treatment to the sitting president’s family, and our press shields Joe Biden from criticism.”

With Republicans so hopping mad over the DOJ developments, it’s no wonder why Trump’s poll numbers keep rising. Moon is not alone with her views. Polls show that more than 80 percent of Republicans think indictments against Trump are politically motivated. That’s a good number of people who dislike everything about Biden, the justice department and liberal policies in general. The GOP’s solution is to put Trump back in the White House to straighten out everything.

Let’s think more about that one. The former president’s defenders keep saying that Trump has done nothing wrong – at least not enough to put him in jail, or disqualify him for the presidency. But what I haven’t heard from Moon, or any other Trump supporter, is what he has done “right.”

  • Was it right (or presidential) for Trump to sit silently at a kitchen table in the White House and watch as rioters were storming the Capitol?
  • Was it right (or presidential) for Trump to pressure his vice president into not certifying the results of the 2020 election, which was Mike Pence’s constitutional duty that day?
  • Was it right (or presidential) for Trump to ask (more like demand) the Georgia secretary of state to “find” nearly 12,000 votes (by any means) to reverse the outcome of the race?
  • Was it right (or presidential) for Trump to stash boxes of classified documents at his Florida home?

The list can be longer, for sure. My take is that anything positive that came from his administration – such as a robust economy and building some respect internationally – were overshadowed by his deplorable conduct since his election defeat. And, yes, he did lose that election. It’s hard to imagine that the party of Ronald Reagan – known for his wit, wisdom and dignity -- wants a guy like Trump back in the White House.

This campaign for the nomination is about one person, and not about the future … and not about pressing issues such as national security, border control and the $32 trillion national debt. It’s about re-living the 2020 election and all those indictments from Joe Bidens justice department – which in the eyes of the GOP faithful apparently is a far bigger threat than Russia or China.

If Trump wins the presidency, we can look forward to an endless string of court proceedings over those indictments, perhaps in addition to an impeachment or two if Democrats regain control of the House.

Republicans have an impressive list of candidates who are ready to take on Biden and talk about their vision for the future. I don’t see how the country can take four more years of Donald Trump.

By the way things are looking, that’s what we’re going to get.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

(image/Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore)

 

Shots will be fired

There is substantial reason to believe this nation will face more armed attacks on our institutions and - in some cases - attacks on individuals prominent in public life.

The University of Chicago has a program it calls "Project on Security and Threats."  That group ran a national poll earlier this year.  One finding: the number of Americans agreeing "the use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency" has increased from 4.5 to 7-percent.

Put another way, that's an increase from 12-million to 18-million Americans adults.  Eighteen million people believe taking to the streets - in some cases armed - is just fine if it means Trump can be President again.

The Chicago institute found the increase "likely reflects the response of a more intense commitment to Trump following the announcement of the federal indictments against him for mishandling classified documents."  Those indictments were announced about 18-days before the June survey and it's likely that timing had a direct affect on the polling results.

And, there's this.  Voices on the far-right are being raised again as they refer to the Biden White House as the "Biden regime."  Federal law enforcement is being called the "Gestapo" on talk radio.  The Department of Justice now is called Biden's "personal police force."  Institutions - DOJ for  one  - is labeled the "Department of Injustice."  Indictments against Trump are referred to as "political war crimes" and an "assassination."

There is public talk on "hate radio" of imprisoning Democrat politicians - even their families!  One of the loudest voices in that discourse is that of right-winger Charlie Kirk who's talked of the outright assassination of President Biden.

It's the MAGA media wherein the audience has been programmed, by years of conditioning, to talk of such things.  To think such things.  What's out there today makes the late Rush Limbaugh and his imitators sound more like "pussycats."

If you haven't listed to "hate radio" in awhile, I recommend you spend about 15-minutes listening to the verbal diatribe.  I seriously doubt any thinking person can stay tuned longer than that.

Lest you think there are overstatements herein when talking of "armed" action in our streets, I commend the name Ammon Bundy for your deliberation.  Remember, he's already had armed experiences against the feds in Idaho, Oregon and Nevada.

Currently an Idaho resident, Bundy recently lost a court battle for blocking entrances to St. Luke's Regional Medical Center in Boise and was fined 50-million dollars for his activities.  He didn't show up in court to defend himself and St. Luke's will likely never see a single dollar of that fine.  That's because he doesn't recognize any form of government above that of county sheriff.  Just doesn't. However, one such sheriff put handcuffs on Bundy last Friday.  We'll see.

Bundy, and other criminals of the far-right, are armed to the teeth.  It's just a matter of time before someone - or something - sets one of them off and there will be violence.  Shots fired.  Somebody killed.

Remember those 18-million Americans who believe "violence is justified" if it means Trump can move back into the White House again. B Whatever it takes.

This armed resistance to authority has been festering for a long, long time.  Fires, stoked by "hate" radio and other sources, have kept anger and fear at near-boiling temperature for more than 40-years.  Now, the accursed Internet is linking up more of these haters using (un)social media.  And, the fires are burning even brighter.

Where the first significant outbreak will occur and who it will involve are still unanswered questions.  But, there are many indications conditions will get worse and shots will be fired.

It's "duck and cover" time.

 

Maligning a judge

The publicist for Attorney General Labrador recently maligned federal judge Lynn Winmill for his July 31 decision prohibiting the AG from prosecuting doctors who refer patients to other states for abortion pills and services. Labrador sent an opinion letter to a legislator on March 27, saying that Idaho doctors could be charged with a felony for doing so. For reasons unknown, Labrador withdrew the letter seven days later.

Planned Parenthood sued Labrador to prevent the enforcement action called for in his letter. When the matter was argued before Judge Winmill on April 24, Labrador’s Deputy AG (DAG) claimed that doctors would not face charges because the letter had been withdrawn. However, he asserted that Labrador would not disavow the opinion. The DAG tied himself in knots trying to explain why doctors would not be prosecuted even though Labrador stood by his opinion letter.

In his July 31 decision, the Judge hinted that Labrador might have won, had he simply given assurance that he would not be filing criminal charges as implied in the letter. His DAG’s refusal to disavow the letter might be characterized as Labrador conceding the need for injunctive action or, in more graphic terms, shooting himself in the foot.

It took a lot of nerve, then, for Labrador’s publicist, Beth Cahill, to imply that the judge’s decision was based on bias for Planned Parenthood. She proclaimed: “In his 28-year career you’d be hard-pressed to find a time when Judge Winmill has ruled against Planned Parenthood, so his decision is not surprising. Judge Winmill wants to restrain a power we don’t possess.” She is wrong on both counts. First, Judge Winmill’s past decisions regarding Planned Parenthood have been correct on the law. Second, given the broad overreach and poor wording of Idaho’s abortion statutes, the AG does have the apparent “power” to bring charges as per his letter, even though there are serious questions about whether the charges would stand up in court.

The publicist for the largest law firm in the state has no business maligning the judiciary in Idaho, particularly when her claims are false. The AG lost in court because of bad lawyering, not because of any bias or misconduct by the judge. Even if the judge had erred, the AG is an officer of the court and should not use the power of his office to unfairly malign the judge. Judges don’t have the ability to respond to unfair charges.

And we should not lose sight of the fact that a judge who stands up for the rule of law often makes decisions that go against his personal values. Judge Winmill was called upon to do just that in 2011 when he ruled that the Republican Party could exclude all but registered Republicans from its primary election. Reading between the lines, it was clear the judge had trepidations about the decision. He said the closed primary would have the “very real and immediate effect of…producing more ideologically extreme candidates.” He obviously ruled based upon his view of what the law required, setting aside any personal beliefs. That’s what judges do when they respect the rule of law.

The extremists have rejoiced over Judge Winmill’s closed primary decision, using it to oust reasonable Republicans and put extremists in control of the GOP. Party chair Dorothy Moon now proclaims that the Party is a “private club” and has the right to purge anyone who has the courage to stand up to her extremist branch of the Party.

The public should not put up with lawyers or law firms that falsely scapegoat judges for their own failings. In over 50 years as an Idaho lawyer, I’ve known of a few lawyers who blame the judge when they lose in court because of their bad lawyering. It is a blight on the profession. All lawyers are officers of the court and expected to comport themselves with dignity toward the judiciary. To have the Attorney General’s office falsely questioning the integrity of a judge through its megaphone is a violation of that ethical duty. Those who support the rule of law should call out that kind of abusive conduct. In the meantime, the AG’s office should make a sincere apology to the judge.

 

What a state bank is for

One of the most distinctive policy ideas in the 2023 Oregon legislative session – creating a state bank – drew a veto from Gov. Tina Kotek.

The proposal proposed a study. But Kotek indicated that requiring the Oregon Business Development Department to study, in a short period of time, a potentially sweeping proposal would be difficult to carry out.

Setting up an Oregon State Bank would make Oregon distinct from every other state save one, and it’s an idea that Kotek said she supports. But what it would be used for?

Oregon has, of course, lots of private banks and other financial organizations, from branches of national giants like U.S. Bank (the largest in Oregon), Wells Fargo and Chase through small community banks and payday and title lenders. They undertake many kinds of transactions, including holding state funds. But some of the larger banks have been moving away from traditional community banking, and the commercial incentives of many lenders and money managers might not mesh with what are seen as public priorities.

House Bill 2763 aimed to explore, though not specifically establish, a state-run bank. State Rep. Khanh Pham, D-Portland, a sponsor, said in testimony that the idea was to help the money flow that involves local governments and provide some backup assistance to credit unions and community banks, but not to compete with them. “Think of it as a ‘banker’s bank’,” Pham suggested. As described, it might resemble something like a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve in the United States, but on a less-ambitious and state level.

(The bill’s main sponsors were Reps. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie, and Jules Walters, D-West Linn, and Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland.)

There also are other ways of looking at the idea.

At least 10 states – Oregon was not one of them – have created state banks since shortly after the demise of the federal Second Bank of the United States in 1836, but by the end of the century nearly all were defunct, partly a result of changing economies and forms of banking. In the last century only one state, North Dakota, has had a state bank, and it is highly active.

The Bank of North Dakota was founded in an environment early in the 20th century of extreme economic hardship among the state’s farmers, who had a hard time getting loans and a harder time finding them at a moderate rate. When the populist farm-based Nonpartisan League took power in the state in 1918, it created the bank to help farmers.

Over the years, it also did much more, the bank’s web site says: “BND has responded to the state’s needs since inception. For example, when teachers were paid with warrants rather than cash during the Great Depression, BND paid them in full rather than with the 15% loss they would take when trying to cash it elsewhere. In the 1940s, BND sold back farmland which had been foreclosed during the ’30s, usually to the original families who owned it and had been allowed to remain on the land and farm it.” It accepts deposits from individuals and businesses, and makes a wide variety of loans, but doesn’t see itself in competition with private banks.

In 2010 Vermont officials explored the idea of a state bank, and reviewed the North Dakota experience. Venture capitalist Cairn Cross commented that, “the Bank of North Dakota appears to use a greater percentage of its deposits to fund loans than does the Vermont banking system. Perhaps this has to do with the Bank of North Dakota’s economic development mission.”

Likely, that comparison would hold in Oregon as well. That could provide an extra, no-cost-, boost for economic development in Oregon – a business support feature other nearby states do not have.

That may be worth considering at a time when many larger banks are moving away from community service and more in the direction of large-scale financial management and investments.

Pham and other advocates may find useful the idea of building a coalition of state bank supporters from around private interests. If the research for such an effort is done outside a state agency, with a built-in external lobby support, it might gain enough traction to see more daylight next time.

(image/Getty Images)

 

A bunch of states v. Idaho

State and regional news tends to be highly siloed. Apart from national news, we tend to hear little about what’s happening in other states, which leads to thinking little about them. Sometimes what happens out of state matters to Idaho - and vice versa.

What happens in Idaho doesn’t always stay in Idaho.

As Idaho is learning – in court.

Idaho is now under the irritated attention of a bunch of jurisdictions, including the states of Washington, Oregon, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia, all places where abortion remains (in general at least) legal. The subject of irritation: One of Idaho’s new abortion laws. In the wave of lawsuits against it, this particular case should get some attention.

The new Idaho law in question imposes a number of restrictions related to abortion, including criminalizing some adult involvement with interstate travel for minors that involves abortion legal in another state. (It also may, depending on how you read it, chill speech concerning abortion and other subjects; that is the subject of another lawsuit.)

The lawsuit drawing in the crowd of states was filed in federal court by the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance, and on behalf of a lawyer who works with minors on subjects including abortion. But on August 2, they got support from an amicus brief in which all of those states in the last paragraph (plus the district) weighed in. The brief originated with Robert Ferguson, the Washington state attorney general, who was quickly joined by others. (The brief itself is not long and worth reading.) The states, like the plaintiffs, asked that the Idaho law be blocked, at least in part.

Part of the brief hinges on an interpretation of the abortion law by Idaho’s attorney general’s office, in a March 27 letter which has been withdrawn (though not reversed or repudiated). The provision concerns helping an Idahoan obtain an abortion which isn’t legal in Idaho, in another state.

The legal logic involved in the law becomes rapidly more complex than its drafters may have anticipated.

The other states, for example, said that “in finding that referrals for out-of-state abortions are prohibited by Idaho law, the Attorney General necessarily concludes that the out-of-state abortions themselves violate Idaho law. The Constitution forbids such an interpretation of state law.”

There is much more. For example:

“First, any residents of other states traveling to, or temporarily residing in, Idaho and seeking healthcare services could be affected. Second, as the provider of health insurance for state employees and their children, who may be temporarily visiting or residing in Idaho, Amici States have a direct financial interest in preventing increased risk to patients and cost of medical care resulting from undue delays or impeded continuity of care.

“Finally, healthcare providers licensed in multiple states including Idaho would reasonably fear Idaho’s apparent reading of its laws, producing a chilling effect on the lawful provision of healthcare in other states. For example, a healthcare provider licensed in both Idaho and a neighboring state, such as Washington or Oregon, may be reluctant to provide abortion services in Washington or Oregon for fear of being subjected to licensing enforcement action in Idaho, potentially resulting in the restriction of their Idaho license or the imposition of fines.”

The states also spoke about residents of their states passing through Idaho and being affected by the law - which would be the case. Travel to another state, and you’re bound to live by their rules. But abortion can be a little different, the states suggested. For example:

“... any pregnancy and miscarriage complications can require time-sensitive treatment, including abortion care, to stabilize emergency conditions. In such circumstances, any failure or delays in providing necessary abortion care puts the pregnant patient’s life or health at risk.”

Our borders are porous. We may think that our states are stand-alone and can easily go our own way. But that’s true only to a point. We do have an effect on each other, like it or not.

(image/Wikimedia Commons, David Jolley)

A debate without end

When I came to the Idaho Statesman as opinion page editor in 1999, it was suggested that I read a special section that the editorial department did on dam breaching. It was a gold-standard argument for saving salmon – the kind of effort that gets a Pulitzer Prize.

As the Statesman saw it, breaching the four dams on the lower Snake River was the only practical way that salmon could survive and the writers outlined a compelling case. The environmental, economic and scientific reasons clearly were on the side of breaching the dams.

Keep in mind, that was 24 years ago. The debate was raging long before that, and it continues today – without much movement in either direction. The groups that were for it decades ago are still for it, and those who have been opposed are still opposed. Idaho’s congressional delegation and state officials were – and still are – adamantly opposed to breaching. Predictably, conservationists and tribes favor it.

A big breakthrough on the breaching side came a couple of years ago when Idaho Republican Congressman Mike Simpson came out in favor of breaching and issued a $33 billion plan to get it done. He said at the time that he didn’t know that breaching would save salmon, but he was certain that removal of the dams was the only chance.

Simpson doesn’t have a lot of support from fellow politicians; even Democrats from Washington and Oregon are, at best, lukewarm to the idea. But Simpson is not one to give up easily, and he may have the biggest ally of them all on his side. President Biden has said he supports salmon and dam removal, drawing recent attention from national outlets such as Politico and the Wall Street Journal.

If salmon recovery becomes a “legacy” issue for Simpson (he has no shortage of those in his long career), he might consider establishing a “Republicans for Biden” committee, mixing with those within the GOP who don’t like the idea of four more years of Donald Trump. Simpson often is reminded of his statement in 2016, declaring that Trump was unfit for the presidency – a statement that may be more applicable today than seven years ago.

Of course, Simpson won’t break from Trump if he wins the GOP nomination … his caucus in the House wouldn’t stand for it. But it’s a sure bet that breaching will not happen if Trump, or any other Republican, gets in the White House.

Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, for one, is taking the potential of Biden’s intervention seriously. Risch is looking more toward the human benefits that the dams bring, such as hydropower and clean energy. The dams, he said, are a lifeline for the Port of Lewiston.

“As a U.S. senator and the leader of an independent free-market research organization, we are unified in our effort to protect the Snake River dams and maintain their economic and environmental benefits for our region,” Risch wrote recently. “Beyond us, there is strong, widespread support for the dams, including from Idaho officials and trade groups.”

Risch points out that dam removal will not be an easy process, even if the president pushes forward. He has introduced the Northwest Energy Security Act, along with Republicans from Washington and Monana.

“Congress authorized these dams, and only Congress has the power to remove them,” he wrote. “Thankfully, many of the congressional members elected to the area surrounding the Snake River dams are working to protect the economic and environmental benefits they provide.”

Responding to Risch’s efforts, Simpson said, “While I respect Jim’s opinion, following his path forward would mean the annual loss of half a million-acre feet of water and extinction of Idaho’s salmon runs. This all to save four dams in Washington. That’s a path I cannot follow.”

So, we’re back to where the breaching debate was when I returned to my home state 24 years ago. The way it looks, the rhetoric will be the same 24 years after I’m gone from this earth.

By that time, salmon probably will be wiped out and the environmental argument will be about saving goldfish.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com