Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legislative Language topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Idaho legislative committee introduces RS 30791 to replace "fetus" with "preborn child" for printing

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A legislative committee voted to introduce RS 30791, a proposed draft that replaces the term "fetus" with "preborn child" across specified code sections; sponsors say the change is non‑substantive, while members raised questions about penalties in existing statute and signaled further questions for a full hearing.

A legislative committee voted to introduce RS 30791 — a proposed draft that replaces the term "fetus" with "preborn child" in selected statutory language — sending the measure forward for printing.

"RS 30791 is a pretty simple bill, even though it's kind of thick," Representative Julianne Young said when she introduced the request. "But this bill replaces the term fetus or variations of the term fetus with the term pre born child. It doesn't change legal definitions, so it's not a substantive change in policy."

The measure, which Representative Young described as about 19 pages, focuses on substituting the language used in multiple sections of code without altering the underlying legal definitions, she said. Representative Gannon raised concerns about whether related penalty provisions could affect medical professionals. "One of the big problems that we currently have in Idaho is, not having enough medical professionals to deal with pregnancies. We're losing, we've lost a number of OBGYNs. And there are a couple of provisions in here that deal with penalties," Gannon said, asking whether the committee could consider changes to penalties while editing the sections.

The committee chair ruled that questions about penalty provisions were out of order for the RS because those provisions were part of existing statute rather than changes proposed in RS 30791. "I'll have to rule the question out of order because that is not a part of her RS, that's existing statute," the chair said during the exchange. Committee members identified page 9 as where penalty language was referenced, and the chair confirmed it was part of existing statute rather than the proposed draft.

Representative Nash, who said he would probe the measure more fully at a later hearing, asked whether the change is intended chiefly as "an expression of values or trying to make this more consistent with Idaho code, or is there a potential of a conveyance of any further legal rights like we might grant into lot of born children." Nash said he would "drill down further" on those questions in a full hearing.

Representative Crane moved to introduce RS 30791 for printing; the motion carried on a voice vote. The committee recorded the motion as introduced for printing and adjourned. A full public or committee hearing was mentioned by members as the next likely procedural step.