A federal appeals court panel heard oral arguments Tuesday regarding the scope of exemptions allowed under Idaho’s strict abortion restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will determine whether to enforce the state’s statutes as written or reinstate a lower court ruling that broadened access in specific medical scenarios.
Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Marsha Berzon, and Consuelo Callahan presided over the virtual hearing. The case centers on a conflict between state law, which limits abortion to cases of rape or incest in the first trimester or when necessary to prevent maternal death, and a previous order by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill.
Winmill’s earlier ruling blocked enforcement of the ban in instances involving serious health risks or life threats due to self-harm. After Attorney General Raúl Labrador appealed, the Ninth Circuit paused that order, effectively reinstating the stricter state law while the appeal proceeds.
Mathew Hoffmann, representing Idaho through Alliance Defending Freedom, argued for full enforcement of the statutes. He contended that expanding exemptions for serious health or mental health concerns lacks historical precedent and that no constitutional right to “therapeutic” abortions exists.
“They leave it up to the subjective judgment of doctors to determine a risk sufficient to justify abortion,” Hoffmann said.
Hoffmann warned that Winmill’s decision created an “abortion-on-demand regime.” He noted that Idaho law imposes felony penalties and civil lawsuits of at least $20,000 on physicians who perform abortions outside the narrow statutory exemptions.
Conversely, attorneys for Dr. Stacy Seyb, a Boise maternal-fetal medicine specialist, urged the panel to reinstate Winmill’s broader protections. Stephanie Toti of the Lawyering Project argued that expanded exemptions are necessary for patients with critical access needs.
Toti asserted that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs did not address rights to life and health, which she claimed are violated by Idaho’s limited exemptions. She explained that patients seeking abortion to prevent self-harm intend to remain alive and avoid psychiatric illness relapse.
The judges questioned the legal basis for expanding state laws post-Dobbs. Judge Callahan challenged the self-harm argument, noting 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.
Judge Wardlaw inquired whether Attorney General Labrador planned to issue new guidelines for physicians. Hoffmann stated that sufficient guidance already exists within the current statutes.
The panel also considered whether Proposition 1, a ballot initiative set for November 3 that would repeal the bans, might moot the legal challenge. Hoffmann argued the initiative does not take effect until January and its passage is uncertain, meaning it does not resolve the immediate legal dispute.