A federal appeals court panel heard oral arguments Tuesday regarding the scope of Idaho’s strict abortion restrictions, weighing whether to enforce the state law as written or reinstate a lower court ruling that would broaden exemptions for maternal health risks.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, comprising Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha Berzon, and Consuelo Callahan, conducted a virtual hearing to determine the future of the state’s abortion ban. The outcome will dictate whether Idaho physicians face felony charges and civil penalties of at least $20,000 for performing procedures outside narrow statutory exceptions.
State Argues for Strict Enforcement
Mathew Hoffmann, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom representing the state of Idaho, argued that the laws should be enforced fully. Idaho statutes prohibit 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.
Hoffmann contended that expanding exemptions for serious health or mental health risks lacks historical precedent. He asserted that the Constitution does not explicitly provide a right to abortion and that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs does not authorize federal courts to expand state-level exemptions.
“They leave it up to the subjective judgment of doctors to determine a risk sufficient to justify abortion,” Hoffmann said, characterizing the lower court’s approach as creating an “abortion-on-demand regime.”
Doctors Seek Broader Health Exemptions
Attorneys for Dr. Stacy Seyb, a Boise maternal-fetal medicine specialist, urged the panel to reinstate U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill’s earlier ruling. That decision had blocked enforcement of the ban in cases where the mother’s health faced serious risk or where life was at risk due to self-harm.
Stephanie Toti of the Lawyering Project argued that expanded exemptions are necessary for a small number of patients with critical access needs. “But for those patients, access to that care is vitally important, as the district court found,” Toti said.
Toti maintained that the Dobbs decision did not address rights to life and health, which she argued are violated by Idaho’s limited exemptions. When Judge Callahan questioned whether requests for abortions regarding self-harm risk were weaker than other arguments, noting there is no right to kill oneself, Toti responded that patients seeking abortion to prevent death by self-harm want to remain alive and avoid serious psychiatric illness relapse.
Election Ballot Measure Does Not Resolve Case
The judges also questioned whether Proposition 1, a ballot initiative on the Nov. 3 general election, would moot the legal challenge. Hoffmann stated that the proposition would not take effect until January and its passage is uncertain, so it does not resolve the immediate motion.
Judge Wardlaw asked if Attorney General Raúl Labrador planned to issue guidelines for doctors, to which Hoffmann replied that sufficient guidance already exists. The Ninth Circuit panel’s decision will determine whether Idaho’s abortion ban remains narrowly defined or includes broader protections for maternal health and safety.