On Tuesday, Idahoans will vote on Proposition 1, a ballot initiative to restore abortion rights in the state. It’s unclear what might happen to a handful of high profile lawsuits currently challenging the state’s abortion ban if the initiative goes through.
The Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, or Prop 1, would have to receive a simple majority of votes to pass, but that may not automatically render moot the various legal claims against Idaho’s abortion ban.
Stephanie Toti is the director of the Lawyering Project, the organization representing the plaintiff in Seyb v. Board of Medicine. The lawsuit argues the ban unconstitutionally prevents doctors from providing medically necessary care to patients.
“The vote itself is rarely the end of the struggle,” Toti said.
The impact Prop 1 may have on their case will depend on how the opponents of the initiative respond if it passes, she added.
The state legislature could amend or repeal the proposition, further tying up its outcome in court proceedings.
“The struggle and the public dialog around access to abortion I suspect will continue,” she said, adding it’s unlikely the outcome of the ballot initiative would result in an immediate and final resolution of the abortion debate.
“It is my sincere hope that in the short term we will see a significant restoration of abortion access for the people of Idaho as the continued court proceedings and conversations play out,” she said.
St. Luke’s Health System is in a similar situation with its lawsuit against the state. The hospital argues federal requirements to provide stabilizing care to patients conflict with Idaho’s abortion ban. Voter approval of the ballot initiative would also not null the case automatically. If it passes, the initiative would not go into effect until January 1st 2027, a representative from St. Luke’s wrote in an email, and Prop 1 could be appealed or challenged before then.
Some lawsuits have targeted more narrow aspects of Idaho’s ban. In Mayday v. Labrador, the plaintiff argues State Attorney General Raúl Labrador could unconstitutionally censor billboards advertising legal reproductive health services.
“The statutes at issue will still be in effect and the Idaho AG has not indicated that he will provide written assurance that he will disavow enforcement against our client even if there is passage [of Prop 1],” wrote Wendy Heipt from Legal Voice, the organization representing the plaintiff.
The Matsumoto v. Labrador lawsuit specifically challenges parts of the ban that prohibits adults from helping minors access abortions out-of-state, without parental consent. A representative for the plaintiffs in that case said they anticipate their court proceedings to continue regardless of next Tuesday’s results.
