Circuit court rules abortion trafficking bill can go into effect in part
The Ninth Circuit also ruled that certain parts of an Idaho law violated the First Amendment
A three-judge panel issued a decision about Idaho’s abortion trafficking bill that nullified one part and upheld another.
The case concerned an abortion trafficking statute, which calls for punishment of up to five years in prison for any adult who helps a minor get an abortion and then conceals it from their parents. The law did not exempt abortion providers from another state or telemedicine providers who send abortion medication to minors who live in Idaho.
Attorney Lourdes Matsumoto, Northwest Abortion Access Fund, and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance are the plaintiffs. In July 2023, their representatives, Legal Voice, Stoel Rives, and the Lawyering Project, sued to declare the law illegal. In Sept. 2023, the Idaho District Court put the law on hold. Since then, the state of Idaho has appealed that decision three times. First, it returned to the District Court, where the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Then, it was appealed on an emergency basis to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the plaintiffs won again.
Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote the majority opinion that ruled harboring or transporting minors doesn’t qualify as speech. But insofar as the recruiting aspect, the court the majority that advising, encouraging, counseling, educating, or protesting for abortion rights was protected by the First Amendment. It is legal for a resident to get an abortion where it is permitted by law.
Both sides characterized the decision as a win. Labrador said it defended the rule of law.
“Idaho’s laws were passed specifically to protect the life of the unborn and the life of the mother,” he said in a statement. “Trafficking a minor child for an abortion without parental consent puts both in grave danger, and we will not stop protecting life in Idaho.”
Wendy Heipt, attorney for the plaintiffs, said it was a “significant victory for the plaintiffs, as it frees Idahoans to talk with pregnant minors about abortion health care.”
Similar laws in Idaho have appeared throughout the country, including Tennessee and Texas. As I wrote about yesterday, the Tennessee law was also ruled unconstitutional because it violated First Amendment rights. Those laws have been proposed at the state level and enacted locally in Texas. It remains to be seen how lawsuits over those laws will develop. However, observers can fully expect these laws to eventually make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court so that there is some uniformity in the law.