Advocates for abortion access saw last week’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in a case involving alleged abortion trafficking as yet another setback in their battle against anti-abortion legislation, but the plaintiffs’ attorneys think it’s a resounding victory in the ongoing case.
Three appeal judges announced a decision on Monday that partially overturned the preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of Idaho’s 2022 abortion trafficking law. According to the law, which was based on House Bill 242, an adult who assists a juvenile in obtaining an abortion by recruiting, housing, or transporting them without the consent of their parents or guardians faces a felony charge and a maximum sentence of two to five years in jail. It includes people who go outside of states like Oregon, Washington, and Montana where the practice is permitted. The only state in the Northwest that prohibits abortions almost completely is Idaho.
Idaho can enforce the law when it comes to harboring or transporting a minor, according to the appellate panel, but it cannot prosecute people who merely give information about where to get an abortion or who offer other forms of financial or practical support so that a minor can get an abortion where it is legal. According to the court, those actions might have been covered by the statute’s recruitment clause.
Wendy Heipt, the plaintiff’s lawyer, stated that the decision is particularly important since it would guarantee that adults can accurately tell children about their alternatives. According to her, the most vulnerable children—such as those with violent caregivers—are frequently the ones who require that help the most.
According to Heipt, this is a significant victory because it is the first case at this level to (acknowledge that right).
Earlier this year, Tennessee passed legislation that was identical to HB 242, but in September, a judge barred its implementation with a preliminary injunction. The matter is still pending. Similar legislation was also submitted by lawmakers in Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma in 2024, but it was unsuccessful. According to the New Hampshire Bulletin, a state Republican representative filed a bill of the same name prior to the 2025 legislative session.
A portion of the issue pertaining to the ability to travel across states has not yet been argued.
In a statement released on Monday, Idaho Attorney General Ra l Labrador called the ruling a huge win for the state.
According to him, Idaho’s laws were put in place expressly to safeguard the mother’s and the unborn child’s lives.Both parties are seriously endangered when a minor kid is trafficked for an abortion without the agreement of the parents, and we in Idaho will not cease defending life.
He noted that the judges’ decision to overturn portions of the injunction was based on their belief that the plaintiffs would not prevail in court, which he sees as a sign that the state has a strong case.
Two advocacy groups, the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance, along with Idaho lawyer Lourdes Matsumoto, filed the case in July 2023, claiming the rule violates free speech and the ability to freely associate and that it is too ambiguous to be constitutional. According to Matsumoto and the advocacy organizations’ employees, the law made it difficult for them to provide unintended pregnancy counseling to minors, including any financial or practical assistance in getting an abortion in a different state.
Labrador appealed to the regional circuit court, which ruled that the injunction may only be enforced with regard to the recruiting portion of the statute, after U.S. 4th District Court Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham imposed the order in November 2023.
The 63-page decision, according to Heipt of the gender equity group Legal Voice, gave them a number of significant victories, including the confirmation that the groups have the right to sue, that the state attorney general is the appropriate defendant, and that the statute’s recruiting provisions are unconstitutionally expansive.
Although some saw the decision as confirming Idaho’s legal authority to impose restrictions on interstate travel, Heipt stated that this aspect of the statute has not yet been contested in court and was not included in the injunction or the circuit court’s judgment.
This is the first step. “We haven’t had a chance to explain the third prong of our argument (on) interstate travel, nor have we had our full day in court yet,” she added. I’m eagerly awaiting that, which is yet in the future.
Idaho representatives of Planned Parenthood describe the ruling as heartbreaking.
The primary author of the 9th Circuit judgment, Judge Margaret McKeown, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, stated that the law’s recruiting provision was so expansive that it would potentially clash with the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression. The judge stated that courts have determined that free speech protections also protect demonstrators who attempt to deter people from entering abortion facilities.
According to McKeown, the Act may even criminalize statements of persuasive encouragement. Consider a person from Idaho who lives close to the Oregon border and has a bumper sticker that says, “Legal abortions are okay.” They live next door. Inquire about it! Desperate to get a ride across state borders, a young person approaches the driver after seeing the sticker.
In that case, the driver might face recruiting charges if they paid the youngster money for the surgery. McKeown went on to say that the text also appears to cover rape and incest, as well as the opportunity to obtain a legal abortion in Idaho under one of the few exclusions.
According to McKeown, an adult who is worried about the welfare of a minor who has been the victim of incest would not be allowed to advise the victim and then help them get an abortion without telling a parent who might be the offender.
GET THE HEADLINES FOR THE MORNING.
The ruling was deemed devastating by several advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood Great Northwest Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, and Kentucky.
According to Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, state director of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates in Idaho, the decision is unlikely to address the law’s significant chilling effect on Idahoans.
When Idahoans learn that you are employed by Planned Parenthood, they approach you in restaurants and inquire, “Will I be arrested if I travel to Oregon for an abortion and return to Idaho?” According to DelliCarpini-Tolman. The typical Idahoan finds these rules and their interactions bewildering, and it’s crucial to note that this is done on purpose to contribute to the chilling effect.
According to DelliCarpini-Tolman, data from a Texas nonprofit called Jane’s Due Process revealed that over one-third of young women seeking abortions there expressed fear of sexual, emotional, or physical abuse should their parents learn of their pregnancy.
According to her, the statistics are clear and demonstrate the predicament that young people in Idaho are in. The bill’s supporters are acting hypocritically by claiming to be working to protect young Idahoans, who would be the ones most harmed by it.
Both parties may appeal the decision and claim to be considering their alternatives.
Both parties have two weeks to appeal the ruling to the 9th Circuit, according to Wendy Olson, an Idaho-based lawyer who is also defending the plaintiffs. Her clients are currently considering their options. They are also thinking about their next course of action, which might involve asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue, Labrador’s office spokesperson Dan Estes told States Newsroom.
The matter will go to district court for full arguments if neither side files an appeal, though it is unclear when that hearing will take place. Olson stated that they anticipate spending time gathering more evidence to support their claims for their day in court, given the judge’s remarks regarding their chances of winning the case.
Verified injunction
A panel of three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court injunction over similar legal issues on Wednesday in a separate case involving Planned Parenthood Great Northwest Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, and Idaho Attorney General Ra l Labrador. Planned Parenthood filed thelawsuitin 2023 after Labrador sent a letter to a Republican state representative who had asked for his legal opinion about whether referring patients for abortions across state lines would violate the state s abortion ban. Labrador said in the letter it would violate the statute, because it says a person can be prosecuted for assisting in performing or attempting to perform an abortion. For breaking the law, doctors risk jail time and losing their medical licenses.
Stanton Healthcare, a crisis pregnancy clinic that often advocates nationally for anti-abortion causes, publicized the letter as part of a fundraising email after the lawmaker gave permission to publish it. Labrador has maintained that the letter was never supposed to become public, and while he has said he does not intend to prosecute anyone for that type of violation, he and his deputy attorneys have refused to say the legal advice given in the letter was incorrect.
The Attorney General s interpretation in the Opinion Letter is a content-based restriction on speech because it silences healthcare providers on the specific topic of abortion, the opinion said. The interpretation forbids expression of a particular viewpoint that abortion services in another state would likely help a patient.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!
