September 17, 2026
Voters Deserve Truth: There’s Nothing Pro-life or Catholic about Prop 1
By: Julianne Young
Voters beware. In a recent editorial article published in the Idaho State Journal, Dr. Uranga delivered a string of false statements about Idaho law, a medical anecdote that defies reason, and a “pro-life” argument that never once mentions the child.
Prop 1 doesn’t “restore” Roe. It’s far more radical.
Uranga claims Prop 1 returns Idaho “to what worked well for nearly 50 years” — “back to Roe.” Roe permitted states to restrict elective abortion once a baby could survive with medical help, roughly half-way through pregnancy. Prop 1, in contrast, codifies elective abortion up until a baby can survive without medical help, nearly full-term, then adds an any-excuse-will-do medical-emergency exception broad enough to justify destroying a full-term, viable baby over varicose veins. Add to this Prop 1’s elimination of parental consent and Idaho’s physician-only requirement, plus strict scrutiny language barring almost any future regulation of abortion. Prop 1 is no “restoration” of Roe. It’s a pro-abortion policy so radical it would make Roe blush.
Uranga is wrong. Idaho does have a health exception.
Life and health are inextricably linked. Idaho’s “life of the mother” exception is not the broad health exception Uranga apparently desires, but it IS a health exception specific to any life-threatening health condition like preterm premature rupture of membranes or pre-eclampsia. Uranga claims she can’t exercise her professional judgment, yet the Idaho Supreme Court already ruled in 2022 that the legal language “good faith medical judgment,” used in our Defense of Life Act, gives physicians broad latitude to exercise professional judgment (Planned Parenthood v. State of Idaho, 2022). This is the lowest legal bar. A doctor doesn’t have to be certain. They only have to sincerely believe the pregnancy threatens life. Uranga claims she has “no” options” when dealing with life-threatening conditions; that is not the law failing her — it is willful ignorance of the law placing patients at risk.
The anencephaly story doesn’t check out.
Uranga describes life-flighting a pregnant woman to Salt Lake City after an anencephaly diagnosis because she “could do nothing” in Idaho. But anencephaly is not inherently a threat to a mother’s life — it’s a fatal fetal diagnosis. The only thing Uranga couldn’t do was prematurely end the life of the child. It’s a heartbreaking situation for a family, but it is not evidence that Idaho law endangers mothers. If something pregnancy-related beyond anencephaly was threatening the mother’s life, Idaho law does permit abortion. Either way, her life was protected and opportunities to provide care for both mother and baby were abundantly available.
Insurance denying miscarriage treatment is not evidence Prop 1 is needed.
Idaho law explicitly exempts miscarriage treatment from the legal definition of abortion. If an insurance company can’t sort out its own claims codes, the fix is correcting the insurer — not legalizing elective abortion up until birth.
A “pro-life” doctor who never mentions the baby.
Uranga invokes “sanctity” in her article — not for life, but for the relationship between adults who will remain in the room when the child is dead. Not once does she reference the thousands of children who will be destroyed, literally, by elective abortion if Prop 1 passes.
The Catholic framing doesn’t hold up either.
Uranga presents her support for Prop 1 as an expression of her Catholic faith, practiced “in a way that respects both my faith and medical training.” The Catholic Church publicly opposes Prop 1. She’s free to disagree with her Church’s teaching, but she shouldn’t virtue signal using her faith to promote an opinion in direct contradiction to the public doctrinal and political position of her faith.
“Safer” and “shorter wait times” are promises, not policy.
Nothing in Prop 1 reduces wait times for ordinary medical care. Nor does expanding access to elective abortion make it “safer” for daughters to build a family in Idaho — if anything, Prop 1 is the antithesis of family-building protections. These are speculative appeals to emotion dressed up as evidence.
In the end, the irony is hard to escape: the same movement using doctors to sell Prop 1 as “pro-doctor” policy has them promoting an initiative that strips Idaho of our physician-only requirement, cutting doctors out as a safeguard against abortion-gone-wrong.
Uranga is entitled to her opinion on abortion and on Prop 1. She is not entitled to use her faith and her white coat to confuse and mislead voters — not when life and death are literally on the line.
Julianne Young is a Bingham County Mom who loves faith, family, and freedom; a former state representative; founder of the nonprofit Idaho Family Strong; regional coordinator for Idaho Chooses Life; and 2nd Vice Chair of the Idaho State GOP.
