Idaho gets green light to enforce abortion ban in health-risk cases

A divided Ninth Circuit panel said the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision likely defeats a doctor’s challenge.(CN) — A federal appeals court on Friday cleared Idaho to enforce its abortion ban against a doctor who wants to treat women whose pregnancies threaten their health, not just their lives.A divided Ninth Circuit panel put on hold a federal judge’s ruling barring Idaho from prosecuting the doctor in those cases. The 2-1 order keeps the ruling frozen while Idaho’s appeal proceeds.Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, sued Idaho officials in 2024 seeking to perform abortions when a pregnancy poses a non-negligible risk of serious and lasting harm to a woman’s health, even if it isn’t life-threatening.After a bench trial, U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill agreed in August. He found that “the historical record shows that our legal tradition has consistently shielded health-preserving abortions from prosecution since the early days of the common law.”“A pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource to be allocated at the legislature’s whim,” Winmill wrote in an 81-page ruling.He barred enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and Fetal Heartbeat Act when a doctor determines in good faith that continuing a pregnancy could cause serious harm or lead the woman to take her own life. He later narrowed the injunction to apply only to Seyb while Idaho appealed.Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Ada County Prosecuting Attorney Jan Bennetts asked the Ninth Circuit to freeze the injunction. During Sept. 22 arguments, Idaho attorney Mathew Hoffmann of Alliance Defending Freedom said it would “create an abortion-on-demand regime.”U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, who joined Friday’s majority, pressed the state during arguments on whether Dobbs’ silence on medical exceptions was significant.“Why should we not read this omission as implicitly allowing a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion for extreme medical emergencies?” she asked.In Friday’s order, the majority said Idaho is likely to win under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.“We think it unlikely that Dr. Seyb will be able to square the district court’s perspective on the history and tradition concerning abortions with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Dobbs,” the majority wrote.The majority also said Idaho has a strong interest in limiting abortions to those allowed under state law, which “clearly outweighs” the harm to Seyb from complying with the law during the appeal.On abortions sought because of suicide risk, the majority was blunt.“There are other methods for preventing suicide, and Idaho’s ‘profound interest’ in preserving fetal life reasonably supports the use of those means over the termination of pregnancy,” they wrote.Judge Kim Wardlaw joined the majority but wrote separately.“As an intermediate court of appeals, we are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court,” she said.She acknowledged the court may eventually have to consider whether a state abortion ban is so restrictive that it fails even the limited constitutional review remaining after Dobbs, but said that issue was not before the court.Judge Marsha Berzon dissented, writing that the majority misread Dobbs, which she said ended the right to elective abortion but did not address the separate right under Roeand Planned Parenthood v. Casey to abortions needed to protect a woman’s life or health.“Unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, the degree to which that holding survives Dobbsis an open question,” Berzon said.She also pointed to the stakes for patients. With the stay in place, she wrote, “some women with serious pregnancy complications will during the pendency of this appeal be required to continue their pregnancies at serious, permanent risk to their health.”“I respectfully, but emphatically, dissent,” Berzon said.The panel consolidated Idaho’s appeals with Seyb’s cross-appeal. The first brief is due Dec. 18, and the order says it will strongly disfavor extension requests. It does not schedule oral arguments.Seyb’s attorneys and Labrador’s office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads