Federal judges protect abortion referral rights in Idaho

The federal court also upheld an injunction barring Labrador or Idaho prosecutors from bringing charges against doctors who refer their patients to other states for the procedure.

It was the second ruling of the week issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on abortion lawsuits in Idaho. The panel also ruled Tuesday overwhelmingly in favor of Idaho law that prohibits adults from transporting minors out of state for the procedure.

The lawsuit against Idaho was filed in April 2023 by two doctors from Idaho and Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky. Dr. Caitlin Gustafson and Darin Weyhrich and the reproductive health care group filed the lawsuit just days after Labrador sent a letter to Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, saying Idaho doctors could face criminal charges. when they refer patients abroad for abortions.

U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill issued a temporary restraining order in July 2023 to prevent Labrador or county prosecutors from pursuing out-of-state abortion charges. Labrador appealed the decision the following day, asking the Court of Appeal to reassign the case to a different judge.

The appeals court affirmed Winmill’s preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court judge for further proceedings. The opinion noted that Labrador has “not come close” to meeting the standard for reassigning a case, which only occurs when a judge’s biases make it impossible for him or her to hear a case fairly.

Labrador’s office and representatives for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The decision came days after another panel overturned most of U.S. Judge Debora K. Grasham’s ruling on Idaho’s so-called “abortion trafficking law,” which bars people from helping minors get abortions in other states without parental consent.

Labrador has since backed out of his letter to Crane. The March 2023 letter was an interpretation of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban after the state legislature sought the attorney general’s opinion on the legality of referring patients to other states for abortions. Labrador wrote that an Idaho health care professional who refers a patient to an out-of-state abortion provider or writes a prescription for an abortion pill that must be filled out of state would be violating state law that prohibits health care providers from performing the procedure help or attempting an abortion.

Labrador emphasized the portion of the law that prohibits assisting in an abortion by italicizing the language.

“The clear meaning of assist is to provide support or assistance,” he wrote. “An Idaho health care professional who refers a woman to an abortion provider across state lines or prescribes abortion pills to the woman across state lines has provided the woman with assistance or assistance in obtaining or attempting an abortion, in violation of the law.” “

The punishment for violating the law includes suspension or permanent revocation of the medical license and imprisonment.

According to Wednesday’s opinion, Labrador told district court judges in a brief that his correspondence with Crane was confidential, even though it was published on his office’s official letterhead. Instead, the letter was obtained by a third party and released publicly.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit days later, arguing that Labrador’s letter violated their First Amendment right to free speech because they no longer felt safe informing out-of-state patients about abortion options.

After the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, Labrador sent a second letter to Crane saying his analysis had been “mischaracterized as a guide for law enforcement.” Labrador retracted the letter but did not deny the interpretation, the statement said.

Labrador attempted to file supplemental pleadings with the district court after withdrawing the letter, but Winmill declined, saying Labrador should have raised the matter sooner rather than causing delays in court. Wednesday’s statement said Winmill was well within its rights to reject the applications.

Labrador’s office criticized Winmill’s ruling last year, shortly after he issued the injunction.

“There will rarely be a time in his 28-year career when Judge Winmill has ruled against Planned Parenthood, so his decision is not surprising,” a spokesman for the attorney general’s office told the Idaho Statesman at the time.

The appeals court judges said they, like Winmill, believed that Idaho doctors and Planned Parenthood had presented evidence that there was a significant risk that Idaho officials would enforce Labrador’s interpretation of the abortion ban.

The case will be sent back to Winmill for further processing.