Idaho Attorney General asks court to dismiss lawsuit against pro-life law

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has filed a motion asking the courts to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the state's Defense of Life Act.

Key Takeaways:

• Labrador says a lawsuit targeting the state's Defense of Life Act should be dismissed.

• The plaintiff challenging the law admitted he has not read a 2023 Idaho Supreme Court decision clarifying it.

• The Defense of Life Act protects nearly all preborn children in the state of Idaho from abortion.

The Backstory:

Idaho's Defense of Life Act protects nearly all preborn children in the state, prohibiting abortions except in cases in which it is necessary to save the mother's life. In cases in which a mother's life is in danger, however, the child does not need to first be directly and intentionally killed through abortion.

In 2024, the pro-life law was challenged by Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at St. Luke's Health System, who claimed the abortion restrictions were unconstitutional. St. Luke's has made headlines with claims that it has airlifted abortion patients out of state to receive abortions, and in January 2025, the hospital system filed its own lawsuit against the Defense of Life Act.

Despite claims that Idaho's law is unconstitutional, the Idaho Supreme Court clarified the state's law surrounding instances when abortion may be committed for the mother's health in 2023, and affirmed that there is no constitutional right to abortion in the state, stating, “We cannot read a fundamental right to abortion into the text of the Idaho Constitution.”

The Pro-Life Reply to: "Abortion is a Constitutional Right"

The Details:

In his motion to dismiss, Labrador noted that Seyb himself testified to not having read or understood the state's law before filing his lawsuit. He said the 2023 Supreme Court ruling makes Seyb's argument of unconstitutionality moot.

A press release from Labrador's office states (emphasis added):

Dr. Seyb testified he never read the Idaho Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Planned Parenthood v. State that clarified doctors may use "good faith medical judgment" without "objective certainty" or requiring death to be "imminent."

He also claimed that he received no training on the Defense of Life Act from St. Luke's. When asked how close to death a woman must be before he can perform an abortion, he testified: "I wish someone would answer that for me" — even though the Idaho Supreme Court answered that question a year before he airlifted patients out of state.

"The Idaho Supreme Court told doctors in 2023 they have broad clinical judgment to provide necessary care," Labrador said. "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."

The Bottom Line:

Idaho law is clear in protecting preborn children from abortion, while also ensuring that women receive the medical treatment they need and deserve... which never requires the direct and intentional homicide of a preborn child.