HICKMAN SAYS IDAHO U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RULED CORRECTLY IN IDAHO ABORTION CASE
Attorney General candidate Lori Hickman said today that United States District Court
Judge B. Lynn Winmill “got it right” in ruling that Idaho’s current abortion statutes violate
well-established principles of constitutional law which prevent women in Idaho from
terminating a dangerous pregnancy under certain limited conditions. That is, the Due
Process Clause of the United States Constitution provides a fundamental right not just to
a life-saving abortion, but a health-preserving abortion as well where the woman’s
physician makes a good faith determination that continuation of the pregnancy poses a
risk of “serious and lasting harm to the health of the pregnant woman.” And secondly, the
express provision in Idaho’s abortion statute prohibiting life-saving abortions
necessitated by psychiatric conditions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. In these very narrow and difficult circumstances, Hickman
agrees with the Court’s well-reasoned opinion that Idaho’s abortion statutes violate
well-established principles of constitutional law.
“Attorney General Labrador has filed an appeal of the ruling, claiming it violates the United
States Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case, which held there is no right to elective
abortions in the United States Constitution,” Hickman said. “The Court, however, pointed
out that the majority opinion in Dobbs ‘contains no analysis whatsoever of abortions
performed out of medical necessity’ and specifically referenced Defendants’ ‘disingenuous appeal to Dobbs.’ Either the Attorney General did not understand the
substance of the case at hand, or incorrectly interpreted applicable law. In either event, it
does not speak well for his handling of the case.”
Hickman continued: “A thorough review of the ruling indicates that the Court carefully
reviewed the evidence, analyzed the Constitutional and legal principles involved, and
correctly ruled. I would not have appealed the ruling. If I am elected as Idaho Attorney
General, I will withdraw the appeal.”
“Mr. Labrador has made a cottage industry out of over-the-top abortion litigation. By
providing the most extreme interpretations to Idaho’s already-strict abortion statutes, he
has created harmful and unnecessary havoc and confusion for women with dangerous
pregnancies, and the physicians who treat them. Dr. Seyb, the board-certified
maternal-fetal medicine specialist who filed the lawsuit, was so apprehensive about
providing necessary care to some of his patients with life-threatening pregnancies, that
he had them flown to Utah to get the necessary healthcare. That speaks volumes as to
the Attorney General’s interpretation of Idaho’s overly-strict abortion laws. Mr. Labrador
has mocked Dr. Seyb’s apprehension and confusion surrounding his ability to provide safe
healthcare to his patients in these dangerous and devastating circumstances, but the
Judge who heard all of the sworn testimony at trial – including that of Dr. Seyb - sided
with the Doctor.”
“The Court did make an interesting finding in its ruling. In the Findings of Fact, the Court
noted that Mr. Labrador has not published any enforcement guidance regarding Idaho’s
abortion statutes. That particular finding resonates because Mr. Labrador has consistently
failed to abide by his statutory requirement to issue written opinions or legal guidance on
important questions of law. Many former Idaho Attorneys General have provided that kind
of much-needed guidance in the past. If done timely and proactively, it could avoid
time-consuming and costly lawsuits like Dr. Seyb’s, and in this particular case, it would
give Idaho doctors the necessary guidelines to avoid the risk of losing their medical
license and/or a years-long prison sentence for rendering life-saving care to pregnant
women in crisis. It would also save the State hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees
to defend the various lawsuits filed challenging Idaho’s abortion statutes. It should not be
forgotten that in July 2025, Mr. Labrador agreed to pay $400,000 to settle a lawsuit challenging his assertion that Idaho’s abortion laws prohibited doctors from referring
women out-of-state for medically necessary abortions.”
Judge Winmill’s full 81-page abortion ruling can be found at:
###
Comments