By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law, reversing a lower court’s decision that had blocked its enforcement. While the court found the law’s prohibition on “recruiting” minors for abortions unconstitutionally broad, it upheld provisions against “harboring” and “transporting” them for abortions. The plaintiffs’ attorney expressed satisfaction with the partial block, emphasizing the protection of speech related to abortion care, while Idaho’s Attorney General celebrated the ruling as a victory for protecting the unborn. The case may proceed to the district court.
Read the original article here
The appeals court’s decision allowing Idaho to enforce its “abortion trafficking” law raises significant constitutional questions. The core of the law focuses on preventing adults from assisting unemancipated minors in obtaining abortions without parental consent, a seemingly straightforward goal. However, the law’s application and potential reach are far more complex and troubling.
The argument that restricting a person’s freedom of movement is unconstitutional has merit. We routinely travel across state lines to engage in activities legal in one state but illegal in another – purchasing alcohol where the drinking age is lower, or using cannabis where it’s legalized – without facing legal repercussions in our home state. The Idaho law, however, seeks to create an exception to this established principle specifically for abortion-related travel.
The law’s ambiguity further complicates matters. It targets individuals who “procure” an abortion or obtain abortion-inducing drugs for a minor, intending to conceal the action from parents or guardians. This vagueness leaves room for broad interpretation and potentially allows prosecution for actions that occur entirely within the transporting state, even if the abortion itself takes place elsewhere. The law appears to criminalize actions that occur within Idaho, regardless of whether the abortion occurs in Idaho or another state. This makes it seem like the out-of-state element is almost an afterthought rather than the focal point of the crime.
This is further complicated by the existing federal laws against transporting minors across state lines without parental consent. The Idaho law seems redundant, potentially duplicating existing statutes and raising concerns about overly broad enforcement. The very existence of such a law seems to indicate an attempt to circumvent established legal precedents and expand the state’s reach beyond its borders, potentially creating a situation where interstate travel for any medical procedure, including an abortion for a minor with parental permission, might be legally challenged.
Furthermore, the law’s impact on minors’ rights presents a concerning paradox. The law treats minors as lacking the autonomy to make healthcare decisions, yet simultaneously holds them legally responsible for the consequences of pregnancy. This creates a situation where a minor is denied agency over her own body and future, creating a coercive power dynamic between parents and children.
Concerns about the implications for other activities often fall into the same category of interstate activities with differing legality by state are valid. For example, the application of this type of law could set a precedent for prosecuting individuals who travel to states where gambling or other currently legal activities remain illegal back home. It implies that the freedom to travel is not absolute and is subject to interpretation based on the state’s moral stance on the specific matter.
The judge’s decision to allow the law to stand, pending potential Supreme Court review, further highlights the contentiousness of the issue. This ruling could potentially set a precedent that restricts freedom of movement on a broader scale, extending beyond the realm of abortion access. The potential for such a far-reaching interpretation underscores the need for cautious consideration of the implications of this Idaho law.
The potential consequences of upholding this law extend to many forms of interstate travel. The fundamental right to travel between states is not explicitly listed in the Constitution but is nonetheless considered an essential American liberty. This law’s allowance, therefore, presents a precedent-setting challenge to this fundamental right. The implications go beyond just abortion and could potentially open the door for states to restrict interstate travel based on any number of factors, particularly when differing morals and social norms among states collide.
In conclusion, while the stated goal of the Idaho law may appear benign at first glance, the complexities, ambiguities, and potential for overreach significantly impact fundamental rights. The court’s decision to allow the law to be enforced sets a precedent that could have far-reaching and deeply troubling implications for individual liberties and the principle of federalism in the United States. The potential for this to be used as a means of restricting travel, based on ideological discrepancies between states, is deeply concerning and warrants ongoing scrutiny.