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 will determine whether to enforce the state’s ban as written or reinstate a lower court ruling that expanded exemptions for maternal health risks.
Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha Berzon, and Consuelo Callahan presided over the virtual hearing. The case centers on Idaho law, which 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.
Mathew Hoffmann, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom representing the state, argued for full enforcement of the statutes. He contended that expanding exemptions to cover serious health or mental health risks lacks historical precedent. Hoffmann asserted there is no constitutional right to “therapeutic” abortions and warned that broader exemptions would create a system reliant on subjective medical judgment.
“They leave it up to the subjective judgment of doctors to determine a risk sufficient to justify abortion,” Hoffmann said.
Attorneys for Dr. Stacy Seyb, a Boise maternal-fetal medicine specialist, urged the panel to reinstate an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Winmill previously blocked the Ada County prosecutor and Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador from enforcing the ban when a mother’s health faced serious risk or when life was at risk due to self-harm. Winmill later narrowed that order to protect only procedures performed by Dr. Seyb.
After Attorney General Labrador appealed, the Ninth Circuit placed a hold on Winmill’s order, returning the state law to full effect. Stephanie Toti, executive director of the Lawyering Project, argued that expanded exemptions are necessary for a small number of patients each year. She maintained that the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs did not address rights to life and health, which she said are violated by Idaho’s limited exceptions.
The judges questioned whether the Dobbs ruling allows federal courts to expand state abortion exemptions. Hoffmann argued the Constitution does not explicitly provide a right to abortions. Judge Callahan challenged the argument regarding self-harm risks, noting there is no right to end one’s own life.
“We have a right to life, but you don’t have a right to kill yourself, right?” Judge Callahan asked.
Toti responded that patients seeking abortions to prevent death by self-harm intend to remain alive and avoid relapse into psychiatric illness. Judge Wardlaw inquired whether Attorney General Labrador planned to issue guidelines for doctors, to which Hoffmann replied that sufficient guidance already exists.
With Proposition 1 on the November 3 general election ballot potentially altering abortion access, Judge Callahan asked if the upcoming vote would moot the legal challenge. Hoffmann stated the initiative would not take effect until January and its passage is uncertain, meaning it does not resolve the current motion.