PoliticsRead Next
Politics
House Democrats plan to dismantle state pro-life laws, expand taxpayer-funded abortion
Mark Wiltz
·Spotlight Articles
Appeals court allows Idaho's pro-life law to stand as lawsuit continues
An appeals court upheld a lower court ruling allowing a pro-life law in Idaho to stand while a lawsuit against it continues.
Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at St. Luke's Health System in Boise, sued the state of Idaho in 2024 to overturn a law protecting most preborn children from abortion.
In August, District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled in Seyb's favor, saying that the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses allow abortion to be committed in cases that threaten a woman's "life or health."
After a request from Attorney General Raul Labrador, Winmill narrowed his ruling to apply solely to Seyb.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Winmill's ruling, allowing the law to remain in place as Seyb's lawsuit continues.
The Idaho Defense of Life Act took effect in 2022 after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision overturned Roe v. Wade. The law protects virtually all preborn children from abortion in Idaho, and includes exceptions if the mother's life is at risk.
The legislation reads (emphasis added):
The following shall not be considered criminal abortions for purposes of subsection (1) of this section:
(a) The abortion was performed or attempted by a physician as defined in this chapter and:
(i) The physician determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. No abortion shall be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself; and
(ii) The physician performed or attempted to perform the abortion in the manner that, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, provided the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in his good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would have posed a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman. No such greater risk shall be deemed to exist because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself...
It further included protections for doctors:
Medical treatment provided to a pregnant woman by a health care professional as defined in this chapter that results in the accidental death of, or unintentional injury to, the unborn child shall not be a violation of this section.
Seyb sued to overturn the Defense of Life Act in 2024, and in 2025, St. Luke's, which claimed that it airlifted patients out of state to receive emergency medically-necessary abortions, filed its own lawsuit as well. The Idaho Supreme Court, meanwhile, ruled on the state's law in 2023, clarifying when abortion may be committed for the mother's health. The court also said there is no constitutional right to abortion in the state. (See more here about the ballot amendment attempting to change the state's abortion law.)
Labrador asked for Seyb's lawsuit to be dismissed, pointing out that she admitted to never having read the Idaho Supreme Court decision, while also claiming to not know when he could or could not commit an abortion if a woman's life was at risk:
"The Idaho Supreme Court told doctors in 2023 they have broad clinical judgment to provide necessary care. Dr. Seyb did not educate himself on what Idaho law permits, which is required of every doctor in Idaho. His patients suffered from his lack of understanding, not because of our laws."
In August of 2026, Winmill ruled in Seyb's favor, claiming the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses support the right to an abortion "when a pregnancy threatens the woman's life or health."
“By banning health-preserving abortion, Idaho attempts to deny this fundamental right on the basis that the threat of harm comes from a fetus, which depends on the woman for survival," Winmill wrote. "But a pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource to be allocated at the legislature’s whim. The Fourteenth Amendment exists precisely to prevent subjugation like this.”
Under his ruling, abortions could be committed when a woman's health is said to be at risk, or if there is risk that she might self harm.
Labrador responded by asking for the block on the law to be fully lifted, or for Winmill to apply it solely to Seyb, arguing that judges cannot issue “universal injunctions” which apply to more than the plaintiffs in the case. “[A]n injunction limited to Dr. Seyb will suffice to address the alleged harm," he wrote. He also appealed Winmill's ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Winmill agreed with Labrador, and decreed that his ruling would apply solely to Seyb.
The appeals court ruled in favor of Labrador, finding that Seyb's lawsuit was unlikely to succeed. In the 2-1 decision, the court lifted the injunction on the law while the lawsuit continues being considered.
“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 court said in its decision.
Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw and Consuelo Callahan made up the court’s majority in this ruling. Wardlaw, in a concurring opinion, said the appeals court was “bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.”
“As such, in light of the Dobbs majority opinion, I join Judge Callahan in concluding that Defendants have shown a likelihood of success on the merits,” Wardlaw said, also arguing that Dobbs meant there is now no right to an abortion in any specific circumstance, "particularly one as vague and ill-defined as the right pressed here."
A third judge, Marsha S. Berzon, dissented.
"Idaho’s demonstration of irreparable harm from the district court’s injunction pending resolution of this appeal is decidedly weak, particularly when balanced against the harm to Dr. Seyb’s patients," Berzon wrote. "For those reasons, I respectfully, but emphatically, dissent."
Labrador celebrated the ruling in a statement, while Stephanie Toti, Seyb's lawer and executive director of legal nonprofit Lawyering Project, waved it off.
"Idaho’s unwavering protection for unborn children and their mothers will continue as intended," Labrador said.
Toti said, “We look forward to demonstrating to the appeals court that access to medically indicated abortion care is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition and essential to its scheme of ordered liberty."
A decision on Seyb's lawsuit is not expected until next year.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Mark Wiltz
·
Politics
Nancy Flanders
·
Guest Column
Mary Strow
·
Politics
Cassy Cooke
·
Politics
Bridget Sielicki
·
Politics
Nancy Flanders
·
International
Cassy Cooke
·
Investigative
Cassy Cooke
·
Human Rights
Cassy Cooke
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Politics
Cassy Cooke
·Appeals court allows Idaho's pro-life law to stand as lawsuit continues
An appeals court upheld a lower court ruling allowing a pro-life law in Idaho to stand while a lawsuit against it continues.
Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at St. Luke's Health System in Boise, sued the state of Idaho in 2024 to overturn a law protecting most preborn children from abortion.
In August, District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled in Seyb's favor, saying that the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses allow abortion to be committed in cases that threaten a woman's "life or health."
After a request from Attorney General Raul Labrador, Winmill narrowed his ruling to apply solely to Seyb.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Winmill's ruling, allowing the law to remain in place as Seyb's lawsuit continues.
The Idaho Defense of Life Act took effect in 2022 after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision overturned Roe v. Wade. The law protects virtually all preborn children from abortion in Idaho, and includes exceptions if the mother's life is at risk.
The legislation reads (emphasis added):
The following shall not be considered criminal abortions for purposes of subsection (1) of this section:
(a) The abortion was performed or attempted by a physician as defined in this chapter and:
(i) The physician determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. No abortion shall be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself; and
(ii) The physician performed or attempted to perform the abortion in the manner that, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, provided the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in his good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would have posed a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman. No such greater risk shall be deemed to exist because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself...
It further included protections for doctors:
Medical treatment provided to a pregnant woman by a health care professional as defined in this chapter that results in the accidental death of, or unintentional injury to, the unborn child shall not be a violation of this section.
Seyb sued to overturn the Defense of Life Act in 2024, and in 2025, St. Luke's, which claimed that it airlifted patients out of state to receive emergency medically-necessary abortions, filed its own lawsuit as well. The Idaho Supreme Court, meanwhile, ruled on the state's law in 2023, clarifying when abortion may be committed for the mother's health. The court also said there is no constitutional right to abortion in the state. (See more here about the ballot amendment attempting to change the state's abortion law.)
Labrador asked for Seyb's lawsuit to be dismissed, pointing out that she admitted to never having read the Idaho Supreme Court decision, while also claiming to not know when he could or could not commit an abortion if a woman's life was at risk:
"The Idaho Supreme Court told doctors in 2023 they have broad clinical judgment to provide necessary care. Dr. Seyb did not educate himself on what Idaho law permits, which is required of every doctor in Idaho. His patients suffered from his lack of understanding, not because of our laws."
In August of 2026, Winmill ruled in Seyb's favor, claiming the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses support the right to an abortion "when a pregnancy threatens the woman's life or health."
“By banning health-preserving abortion, Idaho attempts to deny this fundamental right on the basis that the threat of harm comes from a fetus, which depends on the woman for survival," Winmill wrote. "But a pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource to be allocated at the legislature’s whim. The Fourteenth Amendment exists precisely to prevent subjugation like this.”
Under his ruling, abortions could be committed when a woman's health is said to be at risk, or if there is risk that she might self harm.
Labrador responded by asking for the block on the law to be fully lifted, or for Winmill to apply it solely to Seyb, arguing that judges cannot issue “universal injunctions” which apply to more than the plaintiffs in the case. “[A]n injunction limited to Dr. Seyb will suffice to address the alleged harm," he wrote. He also appealed Winmill's ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Winmill agreed with Labrador, and decreed that his ruling would apply solely to Seyb.
The appeals court ruled in favor of Labrador, finding that Seyb's lawsuit was unlikely to succeed. In the 2-1 decision, the court lifted the injunction on the law while the lawsuit continues being considered.
“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 court said in its decision.
Circuit Judges Kim Wardlaw and Consuelo Callahan made up the court’s majority in this ruling. Wardlaw, in a concurring opinion, said the appeals court was “bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.”
“As such, in light of the Dobbs majority opinion, I join Judge Callahan in concluding that Defendants have shown a likelihood of success on the merits,” Wardlaw said, also arguing that Dobbs meant there is now no right to an abortion in any specific circumstance, "particularly one as vague and ill-defined as the right pressed here."
A third judge, Marsha S. Berzon, dissented.
"Idaho’s demonstration of irreparable harm from the district court’s injunction pending resolution of this appeal is decidedly weak, particularly when balanced against the harm to Dr. Seyb’s patients," Berzon wrote. "For those reasons, I respectfully, but emphatically, dissent."
Labrador celebrated the ruling in a statement, while Stephanie Toti, Seyb's lawer and executive director of legal nonprofit Lawyering Project, waved it off.
"Idaho’s unwavering protection for unborn children and their mothers will continue as intended," Labrador said.
Toti said, “We look forward to demonstrating to the appeals court that access to medically indicated abortion care is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition and essential to its scheme of ordered liberty."
A decision on Seyb's lawsuit is not expected until next year.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Mark Wiltz
·Politics
Nancy Flanders
·Guest Column
Mary Strow
·Politics
Cassy Cooke
·Politics
Bridget Sielicki
·Politics
Nancy Flanders
·International
Cassy Cooke
·Investigative
Cassy Cooke
·Human Rights
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Politics
Cassy Cooke
·