The Idaho Supreme Court heard initial arguments on two lawsuits against the state Wednesday morning. The lawsuits were against the Idaho Heartbeat Bill and the abortion trigger ban.
The petitioners for the Heartbeat Bill is Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky. Caitlin Gustafson, M.D., a care provider in the McCall area affiliated with Saint Luke’s, is the petitioner against the trigger ban.
Wednesday’s court asked four questions: whether to suspend the Heartbeat Bill, whether to pause enforcement of the total abortion bill, set to go into effect Aug. 25, whether the two suits ought to be combined and whether the two cases should be sent down to a lower court for further review.
Petitioners, represented by Alan Schoenfeld, argued that both cases against the ban and bill ought to be combined. They presented that the bill and ban both violated the Idaho State Constitution, due process and the Idaho Human Rights Act.
Schoenfeld outlined issues with the abortion ban, including what was repeatedly referred to as “lethal vagueness,” due to a lack of clear definitions within the abortion ban. He argued that it is impossible for a doctor to make a judgment on whether or not a case falls under the affirmable defenses, or the exceptions to the rule, without concise definitions.
Megan Larrondo, representing the state of Idaho, argued that the term “good-faith medical judgment” used where exceptions were listed was a sufficient measure of determination. The state asked that these two laws go into effect without delay.
Justice Robyn Brody addressed concerns that while private citizens are able to sue under the Hartbeat Bill, the trigger ban would supposedly supersede it, leading to a lack of clarity on which legislation to follow. Larrondo referred back to the legislative intent that the trigger law would be the law of the land, should it go into effect.
Schoenfeld also argued that abortion is enshrined in the right to privacy and the right to bodily autonomy. However, both Justice Gregory Moeller and Larrondo pointed out that at the time of the writing of the Idaho Constitution, abortion was illegal and continued to be right up until Roe v. Wade was passed.
The court adjourned at 11:11 a.m. A decision from the justices is expected before Aug.19.
Abigail Spencer can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @ABairdSpencer