A federal appeals court panel heard oral arguments Tuesday regarding the scope of Idaho’s strict abortion restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is deciding whether to enforce the state law as written or reinstate a lower court ruling that broadened exemptions for maternal health risks.
Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha Berzon, and Consuelo Callahan presided over the virtual hearing. The case centers on a conflict between Idaho’s statutory limits and a previous order by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Winmill had initially blocked enforcement of the ban in cases involving serious health risks or self-harm threats to the mother, though he later narrowed that protection to apply only to Dr. Stacy Seyb, a Boise maternal-fetal medicine specialist.
Idaho law currently prohibits most abortions except to prevent the mother’s death or in cases of rape and incest during the first trimester, provided a police report is filed. Physicians who perform procedures outside these narrow exemptions face felony charges and civil lawsuits carrying minimum penalties of $20,000.
State Argues Against Expanded Exemptions
Mathew Hoffmann, representing the state through Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that expanding exemptions for serious health or mental health risks lacks historical precedent. He contended that no constitutional right exists for “therapeutic” abortions and warned that broadening the law would create an “abortion-on-demand regime.”
“They leave it up to the subjective judgment of doctors to determine a risk sufficient to justify abortion,” Hoffmann said.
Hoffmann emphasized that the Constitution does not explicitly grant a right to abortion. He also addressed questions from Judge Wardlaw regarding whether Attorney General Raúl Labrador intended to issue new guidelines for physicians, stating that existing legal guidance was sufficient.
Plaintiffs Cite Health and Life Rights
Attorneys for Dr. Seyb argued that Winmill’s earlier ruling should be reinstated to ensure access to vital care. Stephanie Toti, executive director of the Lawyering Project, asserted that Idaho’s limited exemptions violate rights to life and health.
Toti argued that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs did not address these specific rights. She maintained that patients seeking abortions to prevent self-harm are attempting to remain alive and avoid psychiatric illness relapse, rather than ending their lives.
Questions on Mootness and Precedent
The judges questioned whether the Dobbs decision permits courts to expand state abortion exemptions. Judge Callahan specifically challenged the self-harm argument, noting that there is no right to suicide.
“We have a right to life, but you don’t have a right to kill yourself, right?” Callahan asked.
Callahan also inquired whether Proposition 1, a ballot initiative on the November 3 general election, would render the legal challenge moot. Hoffmann stated that the proposition would not take effect until January and its passage is uncertain, meaning it does not resolve the current motion.