The Ninth Circuit was right to put Idaho’s pro-life law back in force

The 2-1 stay keeps Idaho’s near-total abortion ban enforceable as the state appeals an injunction that let one doctor continue abortions when a woman’s health was at risk.

Idaho’s pro-life law should be enforced by Idaho, and the Ninth Circuit was right to put it back in force. On Friday, Oct. 30, a 2-1 panel stayed a lower-court injunction shielding an Idaho physician from prosecution under the state’s near-total ban on abortions¹. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said the ruling lets Idaho keep enforcing its pro-life laws while the appeal proceeds².

The injunction had allowed Dr. Stacy Seyb to continue performing abortions¹ when a woman’s health was at risk. For Idaho families, the question is whether a state’s protections for unborn children can be held back by a federal court order while the state defends them. The stay keeps the injunction from blocking Idaho’s law while the appeal proceeds.

A judge created a new abortion right

Alliance Defending Freedom says the district court became the first to find a new federal right to abortion after Dobbs². Seyb’s response says the court reached that constitutional question after a six-day trial with expert testimony³.

Seyb argues that Dobbs left the question open, because it did not address whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment confers a right to abortion for the purpose of preserving a pregnant person’s life or health³. An open question belongs to the people and their elected officials, not to one district judge who answers it with a new right.

Seyb called the injunction a narrow right

Seyb’s response calls the injunction a narrow right, not a broad one³. That is the strongest case for the injunction, and it still asks a federal court to impose an exception over Idaho’s law. The Ninth Circuit majority ruled for the state at this stage: Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador (R) and Ada County Prosecuting Attorney Jan Bennetts demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on appeal and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction remained in force¹.

The question is not whether protecting women matters. It does. The question is whether one district judge can impose a new constitutional rule over a state’s law before the appeal is decided.

The injunction let one doctor keep performing abortions

Seyb’s response says the injunction is narrowly tailored to protect pregnant people in Idaho from dying or suffering serious injury from preventable causes³. A standard that turns on one physician’s call leaves families and the state under a court-imposed exception while the case is litigated.

Idaho’s protections for unborn children should not wait on a single doctor’s exception.

Idaho should defend its law on appeal

The Ninth Circuit’s opinions page lists Seyb v. Labrador, No. 26-5360, filed Oct. 30⁴.

Federal courts should not manufacture a new abortion right to override the protections Idaho enacted for unborn children. Ask Attorney General Raul Labrador and Ada County Prosecuting Attorney Jan Bennetts, in writing, whether they will defend Idaho’s law through the full appeal.

The Ninth Circuit was right to put Idaho’s pro-life law back in force

A judge created a new abortion right

Seyb called the injunction a narrow right

The injunction let one doctor keep performing abortions

Idaho should defend its law on appeal

Sources