Did Gov. Violate Oath With Abortion Law?


Gov. Brad Little–like all elected officials–swore to uphold and defend the constitution when he took office.

A question arises now that he may have violated that oath when he signed the abortion bill and even admitted it may be unconstitutional.

In a letter explaining his approval of the law, Little also said he worries the civil enforcement mechanism will be proven “unconstitutional and unwise.”

In a legal opinion sent to Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, who opposed the bill, Idaho Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane said the legislation would likely violate the U.S. Constitution.

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Just another pol trying to have it both ways.

  2. Navillus.55
    Mar 24, 2022, 1:03 pm

    You know, if males had to bear the children, this would have faded away years ago… At least, back in the day, women could stay home, take care of the children, clean the home and cook the meals. Now, we have to do all that AND work full-time jobs. Does that seem a little unjust to you?

  3. The legislators took the same oath. Since he agreed, are they all in the same dilemma?
    N.55: What seems unjust, and unbelievable, is that one would choose to have children with a partner who would not share in those duties.

  4. “If men could get pregnant, daycare centers would be overfunded.”

  5. Tom Lorentz
    Mar 24, 2022, 5:29 pm

    The government, whether state or federal, SHOULD NOT be involved with healthcare issues, whether male or female including abortion and LGBTQ issues.

    This is government overreach and an introduction to Republican authoritarianism.

    If all Idaho state government can do is rubber stamp Texas legislation it is a sorry state of affairs,

  6. Unwanted Children
    Mar 24, 2022, 10:58 pm

    Is there a correlation between abortion and crime rates? Hypothesizing that unwanted children, especially those with FAS and childhood abuse, grow up to be prisoners. The jails are about 75% crazy people, fact. Crazy parents produce crazy children because the fruit does not fall far from the tree, fact. So, True or False, I don’t know, is there a correlation??

    Eugenics folks were very big on abortion and sterilization, So, what does that make those in favor of abortion today?

    Please discuss in an intelligent way. These are legitimate elephant-in-the-room questions.

    Thank you for the forum Editor!

  7. Boise Lawyer
    Mar 25, 2022, 9:59 am

    To be honest I have never understood how to analyze the exact boundary of what counts as violating the oath to uphold the existing laws in situations involving new legislation.

    For instance, a hyper-technical reading of the oath to “uphold the laws of the state of Idaho” would bar a legislature and governor from repealing any existing state law. That’s obviously not what it means!

    Nor, surely, does it mean that the governor of Idaho has to put on his SCOTUS hat and make correct predictions of future rulings on constitutional law. The oath shouldn’t require, for instance, that Little accurately predict the fate of Roe when signing state legislation.

    Finally, the oath has to mean something slightly different for the governor (an executive) than it does for a senator (a legislator). That’s because the executive is also responsible for enforcing the law whereas the legislature is responsible for making it. “Uphold” has different implications the guy in charge of the ISP than it does for a policy maker.

    I think in the end the oath is most important for its symbolism, because although vague in the foregoing details it is still a public commitment to the rule of law. When measuring a violation, what matters most is probably how an official describes their actions rather than what the actions actually are. A statement like, “This is unconstitutional and will be struck down but I’m signing it anyway” would be an oath violation because it is blatant in its disrespect of the law. But a statement like, “I fear this is unconstitutional and unwise and I sign it reluctantly” still demonstrates respect for the rule of law — it probably leaves him safely in the gray area, and on the safe side of the oath.

  8. Oh, most definitely the governor violated his oath. Talk about trying to thread the needle: Little clearly knows the bill is likely unconstitutional, but he also knows the with the primary coming up he couldn’t veto it, either. I used to respect Little, but between his COVID response and things like this, he definitely turned into a coward more interested in getting reelected instead of doing the right thing. Just sad.

    As a side note, this one is going to cost us more money from the “Constitutional Defense Fund”, since I have zero doubts everyone will ignore the legal advice already provided by the AG’s office. Politicians can pander all they want, but when it starts to hit my wallet, they surely should be punished.

  9. Jo Jo: ” clearly knows the bill is likely unconstitutional” Then does he also know there’s a chance it may not be likely? If so, where did he “definitely” violate the oath?

  10. Tom, most of Idaho legislation is a copy/paste of other states, ALEC, or some other bias bill generator. Anything coming from the ultra-righteous IFF is a repeat of other states- e.g. Eharts transgender athlete bill.

    Dumb people have a tough time coming up with original complicated legal ease. Self included.

  11. Concerned Neighbor
    Mar 25, 2022, 9:15 pm

    We live in the Marketing Society where everyone wants their comfortable lie over and uncomfortable truth. Politicians are liars because most voters demand they be.

    IMO, government needs to GTFO of people’s personal lives and decisions. If it doesn’t hurt society then don’t touch it. On that vein, I’d be happy if they legalized all drugs… as long as the druggie had no dependents, were sterilized, and never allowed any public welfare from that point on.

    Legalized abortion in the 70’s led to crime dropping by half by the mid 90’s. Not all children are wanted. Steven Levitt proved that in 2001, and Abel Francois again proved it in 2014. The alternative is back alley abortions and girls bleeding to death. Talk to people in their 70s and they likely knew someone that happened to.

  12. If Republicans write in Shelby Rognstadt, will it count?

  13. It’s obvious to me that states have the right to regulate procedures like abortion under the 10th amendment. This law recently passed in Idaho attempts to do an end run around the unconstitutional legal opinion of Roe from 50 years ago. The Burger court from back then had to fabricate a dubious interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th amendment in order to invalidate state abortion laws, and it should be clear to anyone with an unbiased view of the Constitution that Roe is incorrect and should be overturned.

    Simply put, if you wanted to make abortion of any sort legal nationwide you would have to pass a new amendment to the Constitution abridging the rights of states to make laws outside of federal purview. Saying that the Constitution says something that it clearly doesn’t is not sufficient. The false Roe opinion was much easier to obtain at the time than a new amendment requiring affirmation by 3/4 of the states. The Supreme Court overstepped their authority, and that authority needs to be returned to the states where it belongs.

  14. I’m not in favor of abortion or having public servants telling someone what to do with their body.From abortions to vaccinations to crossing state lines and killing people.
    The irony of the abortion bill in the same week as deciding about the secrecy of drug manufactures for cocktails given to death row customers. Austin City Limits!

  15. there are alot of experts about our constitution lolllllllll
    about the same number, minus 9, of idiots

  16. The question is not complicated….it’s the answer that elicits the storm….

    When does life of a human begin?

    Which then elicits the next set of questions…

    How do you value that life?

    Who speaks for that life?

    Do you prohibit the continuation of that life and why?

    Who takes responsibility for that life?

    The answer should be simple enough, but it always takes on too many facets of interest from many sectors. Things have become so warped now that there are states contemplating infanticide post-birth because they still can’t decide the value of human life.

    To me, I see the likes of Klaus Schwab and his highest mentor…Yuval Noah Harari….who claims that “There are no gods, no nations, no money and no human rights, except in our collective imagination.”


    Who is “our” collective?

    A collective that HE envisions, I’m sure.


    When does human life begin?

    Who decides and why?

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: