For decades, Idaho had crimes written in
its codes that would usually go unpunished,
and they usually had to do with
what went on in your bedroom.
For example, fornication between 2
unmarried people was illegal in Idaho.
Had been since 1921.
Adultery could get you three years
in prison or a fine of $1000.
That law was passed in 1905.
****** the infamous crime against
nature that was illegal since
before Idaho was even a state.
You may notice I'm using past
tense to describe these laws.
That's because they were
considered antiquated,
some of them unconstitutional
and very rarely enforced.
And last year,
Idaho's legislature rewrote
the code to get rid of them,
which is kind of how the ACLU is
looking at the No Public Funds for
Abortion Act when it comes to what
college professors can talk about in class.
And we talked about this a little
bit yesterday and how they filed A
lawsuit to stop it from being enforced.
The law has been in place since 2021,
and up to now,
no professors have been prosecuted for
promoting or advocating for abortion.
But the ACLU's view If no one would
accuse a teacher for violating
the law the way it is written,
then why is it necessary to have it at all?
Here's Andrew Bartline.
A 2021 law is set to be tested.
The No Public Funds for Abortion Act.
Supporters say the
law ties the same string
to all public dollars.
No taxpayer money would be used
to promote, provide or counsel
in favor of abortion procedures,
and no one is exempt,
including colleges and faculty.
So yes, the folks have been reaching
out to us on this particular issue. Leo
Morales is the ACLU of
Idaho executive director,
and we have challenged it in court.
At this point, professors fear
prosecution, fear being put in jail
simply for doing their job. The
lawsuit named 6 professors. Individually.
They say ethics classes can only look
at one side of the abortion debate,
and literature classes can no longer
read essays explaining the ethical
dilemma of being an abortion provider.
So we have a major issue with
this particular law of targeting
only one side of the debate,
as opposed to both sides.
So, like content neutrality?
Absolutely. This this particular law
is problematic, That in that it censors
and it punishes professors for actually
looking at both sides of the debate.
But ask who wrote this law?
Blaine Kenzadi. This is overblown.
And he says that's not true at all.
Academic discussion taking place in
the classroom on topics related to
abortion and various perspectives on
abortion is allowed under the law.
At least it has been so far.
Has anyone been prosecuted for this?
That is faculty at a university, yet
we hope not. But the threat is real. What
leads you to believe
that somebody could be prosecuted
for this if it hasn't happened yet,
before filing this law?
So the ACLU sent letters to
prosecutors whether they were
going to enforce this law or not.
We didn't hear a response.
A couple of the professors are
saying exactly what you said,
content neutrality.
I want to teach something in a neutral,
academic way. But then the question
you asked the prosecutors is present
ideas that favor or promote abortion.
That language doesn't seem the same
to me between the letter you asked
the prosecutors and then the examples
that you have in your complaint.
Well, we were hoping that
prosecutors would affirm, right,
that the way the law is written
right now is unconstitutional
and and affirmatively say, look,
it doesn't make sense for us to
actually prosecute based on this law.
That's flawed. And you didn't get that.
We did not get that.
Who responded to you?
No one responded to us.
The ACLU isn't just looking for an exemption.
They're asking for an injunction permanently.
This law as written should have
never been on the books, and we
hope that the court agrees with us.
Well, this law as written could have
been amended last legislative session.
Here's a look at that proposed language.
Specifically it says quote to to the
term promote I should say shall not
be interpreted as preventing and we
should have a graphic we could throw
it for you guys now and if we don't
have that my apologies Brian here
it is to to promote shall not be
interpreted as preventing any classroom
discussion on the subject of abortion
at a school college or university.
So that language of promote that's
something we touched on yesterday.
But Brian, a big reason we came
back to this today was because that
letter to prosecutors not affirming
that they won't prosecute this,
The language is inconsistent.
It says will you promise us that
you're not going to prosecute faculty
for promoting abortion in class?
But then all the complaints in their
lawsuit are about neutral content in
classroom discussion about ethics.
Those two are not the exact same thing.
We didn't really get an exact answer on it,
but we do know exactly what they
want out of the lawsuit.
I would imagine 2 prosecutors maybe
a little reluctant to kind of show
their hand on whether or not they're
going to prosecute somebody based
on our law that's on Idaho's books,
especially if they're not getting that
direction from the top attorney in the state.
And it might be a case by case basis as well.
You'd have to see the specific case to now.
All right.
Thank you very much,
Andrew.