A law meant to save lives of Idaho mothers is on the chopping block — will lawmakers keep it?

Idaho maternal mortality review committee ends in July unless Legislature renews it

By Audrey Dutton Idaho Capital Sun

A special committee that was created four years ago to study maternal deaths in Idaho will end in July if the Idaho Legislature does not pass a bill to remove or change its sunset date.

The Maternal Mortality Review Committee is tasked with studying Idaho deaths during pregnancy or within one year of giving birth, and with finding potential solutions that can prevent more deaths.

Idaho Rep. Dori Healey, R-Boise, sponsored a bill that would remove the sunset date, allowing the committee to continue indefinitely. The committee’s budget comes from the federal government; it requires no state funds.

But after an unexpectedly long hearing before the House Health and Welfare Committee this week, Healey decided to pull the legislation.

She told the Idaho Capital Sun on Feb. 17 that she is “trying to decide the best path forward” for legislation that would continue the maternal mortality review committee’s work. “It’s not necessarily done yet,” she said.

The committee’s latest report showed a rise in preventable maternal death in 2020.

What happens if Idaho Legislature doesn’t renew Maternal Mortality Review Committee?

If the Idaho Legislature chooses not to renew the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, the law authorizing the work by its members — who are doctors, other health care providers and a coroner — would end in July.

That means the committee would not review or issue any reports on deaths among pregnant women and new mothers in the wake of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban.

Rep. Josh Wheeler, R-Ammon, seemed to reference the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and its effect on reproductive rights in Idaho. He asked Healey if “the change in both the national and the state regulatory environment” since 2019 “would be another reason that this study ought to continue.”

During the hearing, House committee members asked a range of questions of Healey and of the public health and medical professionals who testified. Committee members asked whether the information generated by the MMRC is available through other sources, for example. Healey explained that the MMRC can analyze data available elsewhere; but it is the only entity that creates those analyses.

The committee has special authority to review records — while adhering to privacy laws — and study whether a pregnant or new mother’s death could have been prevented.

Legislators asked why it was important for Idaho to review deaths of Idahoans, as opposed to looking at what other states and national studies find.

“Thus far, it’s demonstrated that all deaths were determined to be preventable,” Healey told the Health and Welfare Committee.

“The most common underlying causes of death were mental conditions, related to suicide, substance use disorder or overdose.”

Health and Welfare Committee members questioned its necessity.

Rep. Mike Kingsley, R-Lewiston, said he voted in favor of creating the committee back in 2019. But now, after reading the reports it has issued, “they all seem to identify the same thing: substance abuse, mental health. So, I think this has served its purpose,” he said.

Doctors advocate for bill, while Idaho Freedom Foundation opposes it

Dr. Suzanna Hubele, of Weiser, testified on behalf of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians. She was one of several doctors to testify in support of the bill.

“As a family medicine doctor practicing [obstetrics] in rural Idaho, I can personally attest to the need for this review and process,” she said. “We had a recent case within the last couple of years, where a young woman, mid-20s, fifth pregnancy, was deemed to be high risk and established care. Unfortunately, she was unable to hook up with high-risk physicians and ultimately ended up delivering somewhere else.”

The woman developed a blood clot in her lungs and was seen by a couple of doctors — in the emergency room and then with her primary care provider. She ultimately ended up back in the hospital and died.

“This is just one case where, if we had had a comprehensive review of all the people involved in the case, we can look back and see if there was anything we could have done to prevent this death,” Hubele said.

Fred Birnbaum, a representative of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, spoke to oppose the bill.

He argued that it was designed to increase government spending and cause more low-income pregnant and postpartum Idahoans to be covered by Medicaid, to ensure they have health care.

Birnbaum suggested that the maternal deaths may not be numerous enough to warrant scrutiny.

Each of the deaths reviewed by the committee “leaves a child without a mother,” Healey said earlier in the hearing.

Birnbaum took issue with that, saying that when Idaho has 22,000 live births, 10 or 11 women dying in pregnancy or shortly after childbirth is “dealing with small numbers.”

Birnbaum also seemingly endorsed the committee’s recommendations to prevent maternal deaths, saying the proposed solutions are “very obvious” and that “you don’t really need a committee to say some of these things.”

The recommendations include expanding postpartum Medicaid coverage, giving pregnant women priority for subsidized housing, increasing social services funding and support, and expanding access to the opioid overdose treatment naloxone.

“Idaho is a state that cares about mothers and babies,” said Elke Shaw-Tulloch, the administrator for the Idaho Division of Public Health. “We want them to receive the best health care from prenatal care through delivery and the postpartum period. The work of the MMRC helps improve these services for Idaho moms and babies but also to (ensure) whole and healthy families.”

Shaw-Tulloch noted that the committee has “no fiscal impact” on the state budget.

Its funding comes from the public health division’s “ongoing, longstanding maternal-child health block grant, which has maximum flexibility for us.”

This story was produced by Boise-based nonprofit news outlet the Idaho Capital Sun, which is part of the States Newsroom nationwide reporting project. For more information, visit idahocapitalsun.com

Bouquets:

•One of our 90-year-old readers called to point out two kind acts she experienced recently. The first was in Super 1 around Valentine’s Day. She remarked to another shopper how pretty the bouquets of flowers were before both went on their separate ways. “We didn’t know each other, but later in the produce aisle, she came trotting up and handed me one of the bouquets and told me to have a nice day,” the caller told me. “I was so touched by that nice gesture.” A few days later, while shopping at Yoke’s, the caller said she parked in front of a big puddle and laughed about her luck with another shopper in the lot. Later, in the store, the shopper recognized her and asked if she needed help carrying out her groceries and water jugs. “Here’s one stranger who gave me flowers and another helped me carry my things. Those two people lifted my spirits and helped make my day great, so I’d like to say thanks to them.”

Barbs:

• This week’s Barb goes out to Idaho lawmakers Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, and Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, for their disastrously stupid HB 154, which states, “A person may not provide or administer a vaccine developed using messenger ribonucleic acid technology for use in an individual or any other mammal in this state.”

In other words, if the bill passes, it would make it a misdemeanor to administer a COVID-19 vaccine. There are a lot of people out there who believe that vaccines have microchips in them, or alter your DNA, or contain human stem cells, cause infertility, make your testicles swell up the size of grapefruits or make you sing like Ethel Merman — all of which is false. It’s bad enough that we have elected lawmakers who traffic in such misinformation, but now we all have to suffer second-hand stupidity as they cram these dangerous bills in our faces. As one reader put it last week in an email, “Just in case you had some doubts, it’s been firmly established that at least a portion of the asylum is now controlled by the inmates.”

Dear editor,

The proposed Alfieri bill to limit absentee voting was a topic of discussion, consternation and concern at our weekly prayer circle. We range in age from 70 to 95 and take our right to vote very seriously. Our fathers, grandfathers and some of our husbands fought in wars that had every bit to do with freedom and democracy. The right to vote is the keystone of any democracy.

We were very concerned about the restrictions of absentee voting, which serves thousands of citizens: the elderly, physically impaired, those without transportation, those with fragile health, snowbirds, etc. All these folks will be stripped of their right to vote.

Alfieri pitched the bill saying it closes the door to fraud. According to the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office, the 2020 election was executed with a roughly 0.1% margin of error. That margin opens the door to fraud?

Alfieri claims absentee voting “cheapens the voting process.” Really? Does restricting absentee voting make it more worthy? He also claims the bill “will make the clerks’ job a little bit easier” and for that reason Alfieri wants to make the lives of thousands of others more difficult.

This bill is senseless and dangerous to democracy. Such flimsy reasons for pitching this bill are a smokescreen. Alfieri wants a cleansing of the roles to restrict voting representation.

Democracy is only successful if it’s for the good of all. It’s time we pull the curtain back on those in charge and reveal who’s pulling the strings.

As wisdom elders, concerned with democracy, we will not be silent on voter suppression. Not on our watch. Not while we still have a voice and our right to vote. We hope other groups and individual citizens will join our protest of this blatant elimination of our right to vote.

Women’s Circle members

Jeanelle Shields, Karen Lanphear, Lois Miller, Gaea Swinford, Jackie Knechtges, Peggy Sardowski, Jeanne Ball Bonner County Dear editor, Another brilliant think tank in Sandpoint. The city has decided to hold a killing of migratory geese at

City Beach — the best solution they could come up with regarding the goose feces on the beach.

Twice over the past few years, former-Parks and Rec. Director Kim Woodruff thought it was a good idea to capture and relocate geese. Within two weeks and $3,000 of taxpayers money, the geese returned. This barbaric action was devastating to the birds and a waste of time and money.

These decision makers thought that by “relocating” geese would alarm the others not to return to that area. What an idiotic thought.

City officials in December 2022 stated they’ve tried everything possible to keep the birds away from the beach. That’s false. They have not bothered to google “goose deterrents,” because, if they did, they would have seen several solutions.

There are solar-powered geese deterrent light beacons that Woodruff said would not even be considered and offered no reason why.

The lights placed in sand and water are non-toxic; however, geese find them offensive and leave.

With $6,000 spent to violently and unsuccessfully remove geese, this system could have been put into place. Instead, this group has chosen to have a hunting spree in the city park.

Included in this subject is the possibility of E. coli in the water at City Beach. Perhaps looking into the farms north of town lining the waterways emptying into Lake Pend Oreille might be a good place to start instead of blaming the wildlife.

Sandpoint is a somewhat progressive small town supporting organizations like the Panida and Food for Our Children. In other respects it has failed miserably. Shooting geese in their own natural habitat is a prime example. What a disgrace.

Janice Simeone Sandpoint

Dear editor,

At a meeting at Priest Lake Elementary, when the cold water bypass was discussed, I brought a jar of rock-snot from the stretch of the Priest River where I live to show people how warm water and sediment loading has damaged the river. An aggressive woman who knew my name — but refusing to identify herself — interrupted me and Chip Corsi, of Idaho Fish and Game. She barked, “We don’t care about the river!” and stormed off. This poem is inspired by Martin Niemöller, who wrote “First they came”:

First, I heard about the warm temperatures, rock-snot, invasive bullfrogs and fish kills on the Priest River. I did not speak out — because I don’t care.

Then I heard about the Cyanobacteria blooms (blue-green algae) in lower Priest Lake, and I did not speak out — because I don’t care.

Then I heard about the manmade phosphorous plume at Kalispell Bay, which can be seen by Google Earth. I did not speak out because I choose not to believe what I don’t want to hear and I don’t care.

Then I heard that Kalispbell Bay and Coolin’s sewer districts had coliform bacterial counts, most likely from human feces, that can make their way into Priest Lake. I did not speak out because if I did, I might have to do something and I don’t care.

Then I heard about 29 of the rivers that feed Priest Lake are impaired, as well, but I did not speak out because I don’t care.

Then I took my grandbabies to the lake at my cabin to swim and there were rotting dead fish, rock-snot and coliform bacteria where they were swimming. I hope someone will clean this up… but no one cares.

Betty Gardner Priest River

Some thoughts on freedom…

Dear editor,

Definition: The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. — Oxford Dictionary

Some quotes:

“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

— Abraham Lincoln

“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” — Clarence

Darrow

“Only the educated are free.” — Epictetus

“The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” — John

Stuart Mill

“The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.” — Justice Anthony

Kennedy

“It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence never to practice either of them.” — Mark Twain

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” — Nelson Mandela

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” — Benjamin Franklin

Does any of this sound like this year’s Idaho Legislature?

Ken Thacker Sagle

Adults needed in Bonners Ferry government…

Dear editor,

Last week, two special Bonners Ferry City Council meetings were held to discuss a “Local Option Tax” and “Land Use Planning Map.” Both items were significant and urgent. Council scheduled these meetings, in advance, knowing some members found attendance at an Oregon golf event a higher priority.

It is no secret that the city of Bonners Ferry, at this point in time, is in crisis. They’ve had to deal with a staffing crisis, a budget crisis, a community drug crisis, policy stalemates, growing conflict between neighbors,and a sour political climate only stoking division — all in the face of officials who deem recreation more important than the business at hand.

The second meeting delved into a spirited policy discussion, with P&Z commissioners and city staff struggling. Only the bare minimum quorum of three councilors were present. The meeting was never formally called to order, and it ended with no motion to adjourn. One councilor retorted, “I guess we are adjourned.” The frustration of nearly all present was apparent.

I ended last week with a deep feeling of sadness. It seems as if the only folks that matter are old high-school classmates, student athletes and the perennial “squeaky wheels” within the county. This is compounded by officials who do not take their duties seriously. We need adults, in the prime of their life, to step up and run for office to take charge of our future. It’s no wonder we have elected officials who can’t remember yesterday! WTF?

Gerald B. Higgs Bonners Ferry