BOISE — Calling herself pro-choice “in many ways,” freshman Rep. Kelley Packer, R-McCammon, on Tuesday carried legislation that would give a state sales-tax exemption to pregnancy resource clinics — except those that make abortions available.

    Fifty-eight of 70 members of the Republican-controlled House voted in favor of Senate-bound House Bill 62.

    The twelve opposing votes on HB62 were from Democrats. Rep. Carolyn Meline, D-Pocatello, was the only minority party House member to vote in favor of HB62.

    “Many of you have said you are pro-choice, and I am too, in many ways,” Packer said during closing House floor debate. “But for me, the choice should be made at, or before conception, not at an abortion clinic door.”

    Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, characterized HB62 as “pretty narrow,” in that it could potentially affect “about five clinics statewide,” according to testimony earlier in a legislative committee, he said.

    Burgoyne said an error at a pregnancy clinic — where it was thought that a sales tax exemption already existed — resulted in an unexpected sales tax bill of “perhaps $6,000,” for the clinic to pay.

    “I don’t think that the taxpayer being mistaken in that regard is really a good basis for changing our tax policy,” Burgoyne said.

    He added: “So, I think we’re backing our way into a policy because somebody got caught up in a mistake.”

    Burgoyne argued that if the five pregnancy clinics received the exemption, the idea that expanding the tax break within the health care industry could be considered.

    “Those five organizations, let’s assume for the moment, are worthy of this exemption,” Burgoyne said in debate. “There are many other organizations that are also worthy of an exemption. Clinics that deal with the mentally ill, those who deal with suicide issues, those who deal with things like Alzheimer’s (Disease) and diabetes, and diet and nutrition: all of these clinics in my estimation are equally worthy of an exemption.”

    Packer said the tax break created by HB62 would create at most $10,000 impact to state coffers.

    “On a rare occasion you may see that they have a large purchase such as an ultrasound machine,” Packer said.

    She added: “Let’s say that two of these five facilities in the state decided to buy an ultrasound machine at the same time — we’d be looking at roughly $7,400 for that one-time purchase, and another seven to ten years before those purchases would be needed again.”