The plan from Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, would prevent women in labor or delivering their babies from having leg or waist restraints. They could only have soft wrist restraints in extraordinary circumstances, and those would need to come off under a doctor’s orders. McGeachin said shackling women during birth could violate their constitutional rights that protect against cruel and unusual punishment.

The Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) has approximately 20 to 35 births a year, while 10 pregnant women in county jails give birth a year. IDOC Director Brent Reinke said the department’s practices with pregnant women wouldn’t need to change if the legislation passes.

McGeachin worked with the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho (ACLU) on the legislation. Hannah Brass with the ACLU said 10 other states have similar laws on the books and said that the use of restraints is inhumane and can pose safety risks for expectant mothers and children.

“You’ll be supporting the dignity of pregnant prisoners and ensuring their safety,” Brass told the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee, which approved the plan without dissent.

Committee Chairman Denton Darrington, R-Declo, asked whether the legislation was in search of a problem that didn’t exist in Idaho. Brass said the ACLU has received complaints from women who said they were shackled during labor and delivery. However, they didn’t pursue the issue legally because none of the women wanted to be identified.

“I don’t put much stock into those kind of complaints if they’re not willing to have them looked at,” Darrington said.

The legislation was recommended by the Idaho Sheriffs Association, which serves sheriffs who run county jails. It was also backed by Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and Right to Life of Idaho. Marty Durand with Planned Parenthood said it’s the first time in 10 years that she’s been on the same side of an issue with anti-abortion rights groups.

“We’re not only pro-baby but we’re pro-mom,” said Jason Herring with Right to Life of Idaho.

The legislation now heads to the Senate for a full vote.

Idaho Falls Republican Rep. Janice McGeachin‘s bill would prevent jailors in Idaho from putting physical restraints on female prisoners during the labor process.  McGeachin said the measure is meant to protect the state and local governments from pricy lawsuits about the practice.  The Idaho Falls Republican cited a 2009 judgment handed down by justices in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, who said that shackling a prisoner during childbirth is “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is prohibited by the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

She did not cite any cases of the practice in Idaho in recent history.

The bill does not completely outlaw the practice, however.  McGeachin said that if prisoners in labor pose a danger to themselves or medical staff, jailors may still restrain them.

The bill now heads to the House floor for consideration.  This is the second time McGeachin has pitched the bill; in 2010, her measure failed to clear the committee, with Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) providing enough opposition to force the hold  on the legislation.  IDOC head Brett Reinke was in attendance at Monday’s meeting, but did not support or oppose the plan.

Jeff Ray, IDOC spokesman, said the 2010 law would have created a new law where one is not needed.  Ray and the department have not taken a position on the 2011 version.

The measure has the support of the Idaho Sheriff’s Association (ISA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Right to Life Idaho.  Michael Kane, lobbyist for the ISA, said that legislation is good for Idaho.  “We are in support of this bill,” Kane explained.  “We are happy to do it.”

Hannah Brass with the ACLU said the measure is less lenient than laws in other states that prevent shackling of pregnant women from the beginning of the second trimester of the pregnancy through the end of the delivery process.  Ten states, Brass explained, ban the practice and 12 more are considering similar measures.  “Shackling pregnant prisoners is dangerous and inhumane,” said Brass, adding that restraining females in labor leaves them “unable to manage extreme pains” of the process.

Jason Herring with Right to Life of Idaho said that even mothers in prison have basic rights.  “We … believe that she [a pregnant mother in prison] should be treated with dignity and uttermost care,” said Herring.  “We believe this is a good bill for Idaho’s mothers behind bars.”

Since the close of the Legislature in early April,  DHW has had to close nine field offices across the state and lay off more than 120 workers.  The agency has also had to focus on cutting $247 million out of its Medicaid budget due to funding shortfalls.  To find ideas of where it can cut, DHW launched a website for citizens and providers alike to submit suggestions.

DHW spokesman Tom Shanahan told IdahoReporter.com on April 12 that department officials were too busy making changes to the agency to begin determining parameters for the study.  On Tuesday, Shanahan said in an e-mail message that officials are still busy with the department’s regular work, but would likely begin the study in the next few weeks.  He said that personnel within the department have started to discuss options on how to conduct the study, but no final decisions have been made.

The department has until the 2011 Idaho Legislature convenes in January of 2011 to do the study.  At that time, department officials must report their findings to lawmakers.  Though no final study goals have been set, it is anticipated that DHW will study the cost and legality of random drug testing for those on public assistance payments.

While pitching the plan during the 2010 legislative session, Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, told lawmakers a study on how to remove drug addicts from public assistance payments is “about 30-35 years too late” and that the state needs to look ahead at ways to save money by withholding payments to those who choose to abuse the system.

Though supportive of drug testing for a public assistance recipient, Wills is concerned with how much a program doing that could cost the state.  Though he believes the state could save “a huge amount of money” by removing addicts from public assistance payments, he would like the department to study how to create a program which is ultimately “self-supporting.”  Wills added that one possible solution to pay for the program is to institute the testing and use some of the money saved by not having drug addicts on public assistance.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says that the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, authorizes, but does not require, states to use drug testing as a screening method for welfare recipients.  The group feels, however, that screening citizens with drug tests is too costly, ineffective, and likely unconstitutional.  On its website, the ACLU says there is evidence that a questionnaire could be more effective in catching drug abusers than random drug testing.

During the floor hearing on the plan, Rep. Liz Chavez, D-Lewiston, said that she believes the study is a waste of time and will only burden a department already reeling from massive budget cuts.

DHW director Richard Armstrong, in a previous interview with IdahoReporter.com, said that the agency is already having trouble dealing with its assigned duties.  “We are struggling to keep up with the workload that is at our door today,” said Armstrong.

House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, warned lawmakers against using results of the study as a means to simply remove people from public assistance payments because, as he said, children of abusers would likely take removal of public money the hardest.

Wills told lawmakers his plan is something they would be forced into doing, like it or not.  “We have to go down this road sometime,” said Wills.

IDOC reached an agreement with the ACLU to be removed from the lawsuit, Riggs v. Valdez.  “It is the goal of the State of Idaho to make its prisons safe,” IDOC Director Brent Reinke said in a news release.  “If the current litigation in Riggs v. Valdez results in a federal court order directed at ICC and CCA to change their policies and procedures, the state of Idaho will aggressively oversee compliance of an order at ICC.”

Monica Hopkins with ACLU of Idaho said going after CCA, and not the corrections department, would save state taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal expenses.  “We felt Corrections Corporation of America was the real culprit,” she told IdahoReporter.com.  “However, when state governments choose to contract out the management of its facilities, they don’t contract out the responsibility to adhere to constitutional standards.  The ACLU expects the department to aggressively enforce the safety of its facilities.”

The ACLU’s lawsuit alleges prisoner-on-prisoner violence and 24 cases of assault at ICC since November 2006.

Hopkins said CCA has two months to respond to the change in the class action lawsuit, and that a preliminary hearing on the case is set for Aug. 4, but could change.  A representative for CCA could not be reached for comment.

The ACLU has more on the lawsuit, including the amended complaint against CCA and ICC, at its website.

The law gives police officers in Arizona the power to attempt to determine the citizenship status of anyone they stop through lawful means.  If officers have a reasonable suspicion that a person they stop might be an illegal immigrant, police have the power to detain the person under the new provision.

The protest was headlined with speeches by Monica Hopkins, executive director of ACLU Idaho, Sen. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, and Leo Morales, a community organizer with Idaho Community Action Network (ICAN).

Hopkins told those gathered that the ACLU is preparing to challenge the law, which she called unconstitutional, in courts.  “It betrays American values,” said Hopkins.  “This law flies in the face of the Constitution by turning the presumption of innocence on its head.”  Hopkins, who spoke against three anti-illegal immigration bills at the Idaho Capitol during the 2010 legislative session, said the duty of developing and enforcing immigration policy rests with the federal government and not the states themselves.

By turning police officers into immigration enforcers, Hopkins said, the government of Arizona is creating an environment of fear in areas of the state that are already distrusting of law enforcement officials.  She said that law enforcement efforts in the state will be hampered by the law because police officers will be diverted from their primary responsibility of public safety to a task which is not their duty.

“The fact is that what Arizona has done is taking the country backwards,” said Morales, who himself is an immigrant. He told the crowd that he worked in the fields for 12 years after coming to the U.S. to find a better life.  Following his work there, Morales went on to college to better himself.  “But my story is not unusual; that is the American story.  Community members from all over the world coming to this nation for the opportunity to succeed,” he said.  He said encouraged the crowd to call Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the state’s senior member of the U.S. Senate, to encourage him to push for comprehensive immigration reform on the federal level.  He also urged those present to express their voice through at the polls during upcoming elections.

LeFavour told that crowd government officials in Arizona need to remember that the U.S. consists entirely of immigrants from other countries.  She said that the immigrants today are not criminals, but rather hard working, family-oriented people who came to the U.S. looking to better themselves and their families.  The law passed in Arizona, LeFavour said, will spread fear among racial minorities, regardless of their immigration status.  She, like Hopkins and Morales, called for immigration reform to take place on the federal level.  “Other nations have managed to craft sensible immigration policies that allow people to live and work across borders.” said LeFavour. “Why can’t we?”

The protest also featured traditional Mexican dancers, as well as a solo song performance.

(Note: Several protestors came to the rally carrying signs expressing outrage over the law; see what those signs had to say here.)

The law gives police officers in Arizona the power to attempt to determine the citizenship status of anyone they stop through lawful means.  If officers have a reasonable suspicion that a person they stop might be an illegal immigrant, police have the power to detain the person under the new provision.

Several of the protesters came to the rally with signs expressing discontent and disapproval of the measure, which is set to take effect at the end of July.  Many groups and organizations, including the ACLU, have promised lawsuits to prevent the law from ever being enforced.   The protest in Boise was part of a string of rallies across the nation Saturday.  Larger cities reported greater numbers than did Boise.  Officials in Dallas, Texas, report that as many as 25,000 attended the rally in that city.

Here are a few of the signs:

Scott McGavin

Trudy McGavin

Manuel Herrera

Gustavo Acosta

Chris Arenz, left, and his brother Carlos Arenz, right

Saona said that the session began much like 2009, with legislators coming to Boise focused on budgets, which, she said, sets the tone of session. She said that in 2009, because so much emphasis was put on budgetary matters, lawmakers were more focused and less likely to deal with social issues. It was a different scene in 2010, said Saona, who added that issues dealing with immigration and choice, which didn’t receive committee hearings in 2009, “went a little bit further” this year.

Sen. Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, successfully pushed through legislation to lower the age of consent for teens who engage in sexual activity, which Saona hailed as a success. She said that critics of the bill who argued against it out of fear that predators may have more leeway are misguided because “prosecutors still have plenty of tools in their toolbox” to go after dangerous individuals.

She also said that lawmakers in the Idaho Legislature weren’t correct in pursuing state immigration reform because “it’s something … that really only the federal government can make huge changes on.” She added that states that make “piecemeal changes” to immigration law only instill confusion. She also said that had the reforms been enacted into law, they would have led to racial profiling in hiring practices of employers.

The ACLU also opposed a bill proposed by Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, which allows medical workers to refuse to perform certain medical procedures, like abortions, or dispense some medications due to religious objections. Saona said that her organization, which protects both religious liberties and the rights of patients, opposed the legislation because it favored the religious liberties over patients.

Several less controversial bills were introduced into the Legislature in 2010, including a measure by Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, to ban shackling of pregnant prisoners in labor in county jails. Saona said that the ACLU worked with McGeachin and the Idaho Sheriffs Association – something she said “doesn’t happen very often” – to develop the bill, which, due to opposition from the Idaho Department of Correction, never received a full committee hearing. The legislation will likely appear during the 2011 session.

“We hope to keep working on it,” said Saona.

Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, successfully pushed through a piece of legislation in the House limiting the use of whole-body imaging machines, though it never received a Senate committee hearing. Saona said that her organization does “have concerns about the use of that type of technology generally.” Concerns of jurisdiction, meaning who has authority to regulate the use of the body scanners in airports, may have derailed the legislation, said Saona.

Another bill pitched by Hart was a plan to limit the use of radio chips in driver’s licenses in Idaho. The measure, like his other, never received a Senate committee hearing. Saona said that the ACLU is generally supportive of “pieces of that bill,” but is wary of other parts, including a provision designed to crack down on the issuance of licenses to illegal immigrants.

“We’re definitely concerned about privacy,” said Saona.

In a video interview with IdahoReporter.com, Hopkins explains why the ACLU decided to sue for $155 million and why she thinks the facility has three times the amount of violence reported at other facilities.

Under Hart’s plan, security personnel in airports, or other public facilities, would be prohibited from using the scanners as a primary means for ensuring the safety of a respective facility.  The bill says that screeners must first use an alternative method of screening, such as a metal detector, as the primary inspection method.  Only if a person is deemed a potential threat by security personnel after using a primary screening method may a whole-body scan be required.  Even if security personnel proscribe a whole-body image of a particular person, that person would be enabled, by the legislation, to request a less-invasive pat-down search.  If the person chooses a whole-body scan, security personnel would be required to inform that person of the potential health risks associated with the use of the scanner.

Hart said that in his research and talking to professionals about the machines, he has been told that the machines irradiate people to the level which equals that person spending one full day in the sun.  Hart said the science isn’t conclusive because long-term testing of the machines has yet to be done. Because of the radiation used to produce images, Hart is concerned that those who travel often would be adversely affected more than average Americans who travel only a few times each year.  Under directives of Hart’s plan, the head of Homeland Security in Idaho would need to certify the safety of the machines prior to installation and use in public facilities in the state.

Provisions in the bill prohibit the storage and transfer of the images produced by the scanners.  Hart said that the images produced are 360 degree x-ray images in which the person being scanned is basically naked and he wants to prevent those images from becoming public.

Hart admitted that if his legislation is passed, it could still have some loose ends and could lead to a jurisdictional dispute with the federal government.  According to Hart, the state of Idaho owns the land underneath the Boise Airport, as well as the land for federal buildings in the state.  Though under Hart’s bill the state wouldn’t have complete power to regulate the use of the machines, it would, at best, give the state “concurrent jurisdiction” with the federal government.  The federal government, by way of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, typically has authority to regulate travel safety initiatives, though Hart says that authority could be trumped by the state if the machines are found to be a health risk.  Hart indicated that the state could use “police power” to regulate the machine’s usage if they are found to be harmful to humans.

Several interest groups supported the measure, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Gun Owners of American, two groups which usually don’t agree on much in the way of politics.  Hart said that groups from the left, right, and center of the ideological spectrum lined up to oppose the machines because of the invasion of privacy they represent.

Rep. Branden Durst, D-Boise, was the only House member to argue against the measure.  Durst said he feels that because the federal government cleared the machines for usage, they are safe for use in the state.  He also told lawmakers that, in his opinion, protecting citizens through enhanced security measures trumps concerns over privacy.

“I appreciate the need for privacy,” said Durst, before adding that he feels that machines are “an appropriate use of government” in preventing future terrorist attacks.

A fellow House Democrat, Rep. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, rose in support of Hart’s legislation.  Ringo said that the “natural response” of many in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks was to give up some personal privacies and freedoms in exchange for security provided by the government.  Ringo urged lawmakers to remember that those who fought for our country did so in the name of personal freedom and liberty.

Ringo was joined in her sentiments by Rep. Russ Matthews, R-Idaho Falls.  Matthews told lawmakers that he would like to “err on the side of freedom” in dealing with matters of security and privacy, and that Hart’s bill is a step in the right direction.

“Let us not allow the fed government to pillage our freedom in the name of security,” said Matthews.

Legislators passed the bill on a 58-9.   It now heads to the Senate for deliberation.

Under Hart’s plan, security personnel in airports, or other public facilities, would be prohibited from using the scanners as a primary means for ensuring the safety of a respective facility.  The bill says that screeners must first use an alternative method of screening, such as a metal detector, as the primary inspection method.  Only if a person is deemed a potential threat by security personnel after using a primary screening method may a whole-body scan be required.  Even if security personnel proscribe a whole-body image of a particular person, that person would be enabled, by the legislation, to request a less-invasive pat-down search.  If the person chooses a whole-body scan, security personnel would be required to inform that person of the potential health risks associated with the use of the scanner.

Hart said that in his research and talking to professionals about the machines, he has been told that the machines irradiate people to the level which equals that person spending one full day in the sun.  Hart said the science isn’t conclusive because long-term testing of the machines has yet to be done. Because of the radiation used to produce images, Hart is concerned that those who travel often would be adversely affected more than average Americans who travel only a few times each year.  Under directives of Hart’s plan, the head of Homeland Security in Idaho would need to certify the safety of the machines prior to installation and use in public facilities in the state.

Provisions in the bill prohibit the storage and transfer of the images produced by the scanners.  Hart said that the images produced are 360 degree x-ray images in which the person being scanned is basically naked and he wants to prevent those images from becoming public.

Hart admitted that if his legislation is passed, it could still have some loose ends and could lead to a jurisdictional dispute with the federal government.  According to Hart, the state of Idaho owns the land underneath the Boise Airport, as well as the land for federals buildings in the state.  Though under Hart’s bill the state wouldn’t have complete power to regulate the use of the machines, it would, at best, give the state “concurrent jurisdiction” with the federal government.  The federal government, by way of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, typically has authority to regulate travel safety initiatives, though Hart says that authority could be trumped by the state if the machines are found to be a health risk.  Hart indicated that the state could use “police power” to regulate the machine’s usage if they are found to be harmful to humans.

Several interest groups supported the measure, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Gun Owners of American, two groups which usually don’t agree on much in the way of politics.  Hart said that groups from the left, right, and center of the ideological spectrum lined up to oppose the machines because of the invasion of privacy they represent.

Hart said that only 40 machines can be found at airports or federal buildings across the U.S., but he believes that up to 1,000 are on order.  No buildings in Idaho utilize the scanners.

The measure now heads to the House floor for a vote.