For the last four years, my opponent, Raúl Labrador, has used abortion as his principal partisan issue, utterly dismissing the collateral damage that it has caused across our state. Mr. Labrador’s extreme interpretation of Idaho’s total abortion ban has not only compromised the safety of pregnant Idahoans, but has led to the loss of roughly 35% of Idaho’s obstetric physicians.

Thanks to his erroneous interpretation of Idaho law, physicians faced criminal prosecution for referring a high-risk pregnant patient out of state for reproductive care. That interpretation went beyond the statute itself, violating physicians’ First Amendment rights to free speech and subjecting them to criminal prosecution for reproductive and abortion care that they themselves did not perform.

The result: Medical practitioners and advanced care providers who are working every day to keep Idaho families safe and healthy left our state in droves. And when care shortages emerge, it is always our rural hospitals and clinics that bear the brunt of those consequences, forcing closures and delays that make it much harder for pregnant women living in rural areas to have access to safe maternal care.

I am running for Idaho attorney general because I believe the attorney general should be a conscientious lawyer for the state, who puts politics aside and interprets and applies the laws as written. Several courts have now ruled that Mr. Labrador’s extreme interpretation of our abortion laws is unreasonably strict and, in some cases, altogether unconstitutional. But because his office is motivated by political ideology instead of the rule of law, he will keep up the fight and keep putting Idaho women at risk. The fact that they can get the health-preserving and life-saving care they need in Utah, but not Idaho, speaks volumes.

The reason we interpret our laws at all is to mitigate the difference between the intent of the law and the real-world impact it has on Idahoans. At the time it passed, Idaho’s total abortion ban was primarily a political statement and thus was not carefully crafted because there was no realistic expectation that it would ever be triggered. Six years later and four years after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, we are still basing our healthcare decisions on legislative language that was more of a theoretical exercise than legitimate guidelines for the road ahead.

That brings us to Proposition 1, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act Initiative, which will be on the ballot this November. Passing Prop 1 will clean the slate of the tangle of existing laws that make it complicated for women and their doctors to safely navigate a pregnancy. It replaces Idaho’s abortion ban and the mishmash of related laws that Mr. Labrador has a bad habit of incorrectly interpreting with straightforward language that protects medically necessary abortions when the mother’s health is endangered and protects the physicians who care for them.

My hope is that reason, compassion and respect for women’s access to safe healthcare will prevail on the ballot this November and in the Idaho Legislature moving forward. If elected as attorney general, I will provide timely, nonpolitical, and legally sound written advice to legislators on both sides of this and other issues. And I will respect the outcome of the legislative process and interpret the resulting laws without personal or political bias. That is how the Idaho attorney general should fulfill the oath of office.