State and regional news tends to be highly siloed. Apart from national news, we tend to hear little about what’s happening in other states, which leads to thinking little about them. Sometimes what happens out of state matters to Idaho - and vice versa.
What happens in Idaho doesn’t always stay in Idaho.
As Idaho is learning – in court.
Idaho is now under the irritated attention of a bunch of jurisdictions, including the states of Washington, Oregon, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia, all places where abortion remains (in general at least) legal. The subject of irritation: One of Idaho’s new abortion laws. In the wave of lawsuits against it, this particular case should get some attention.
The new Idaho law in question imposes a number of restrictions related to abortion, including criminalizing some adult involvement with interstate travel for minors that involves abortion legal in another state. (It also may, depending on how you read it, chill speech concerning abortion and other subjects; that is the subject of another lawsuit.)
The lawsuit drawing in the crowd of states was filed in federal court by the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance, and on behalf of a lawyer who works with minors on subjects including abortion. But on August 2, they got support from an amicus brief in which all of those states in the last paragraph (plus the district) weighed in. The brief originated with Robert Ferguson, the Washington state attorney general, who was quickly joined by others. (The brief itself is not long and worth reading.) The states, like the plaintiffs, asked that the Idaho law be blocked, at least in part.
Part of the brief hinges on an interpretation of the abortion law by Idaho’s attorney general’s office, in a March 27 letter which has been withdrawn (though not reversed or repudiated). The provision concerns helping an Idahoan obtain an abortion which isn’t legal in Idaho, in another state.
The legal logic involved in the law becomes rapidly more complex than its drafters may have anticipated.
The other states, for example, said that “in finding that referrals for out-of-state abortions are prohibited by Idaho law, the Attorney General necessarily concludes that the out-of-state abortions themselves violate Idaho law. The Constitution forbids such an interpretation of state law.â€
There is much more. For example:
“First, any residents of other states traveling to, or temporarily residing in, Idaho and seeking healthcare services could be affected. Second, as the provider of health insurance for state employees and their children, who may be temporarily visiting or residing in Idaho, Amici States have a direct financial interest in preventing increased risk to patients and cost of medical care resulting from undue delays or impeded continuity of care.
“Finally, healthcare providers licensed in multiple states including Idaho would reasonably fear Idaho’s apparent reading of its laws, producing a chilling effect on the lawful provision of healthcare in other states. For example, a healthcare provider licensed in both Idaho and a neighboring state, such as Washington or Oregon, may be reluctant to provide abortion services in Washington or Oregon for fear of being subjected to licensing enforcement action in Idaho, potentially resulting in the restriction of their Idaho license or the imposition of fines.â€
The states also spoke about residents of their states passing through Idaho and being affected by the law - which would be the case. Travel to another state, and you’re bound to live by their rules. But abortion can be a little different, the states suggested. For example:
“... any pregnancy and miscarriage complications can require time-sensitive treatment, including abortion care, to stabilize emergency conditions. In such circumstances, any failure or delays in providing necessary abortion care puts the pregnant patient’s life or health at risk.â€
Our borders are porous. We may think that our states are stand-alone and can easily go our own way. But that’s true only to a point. We do have an effect on each other, like it or not.
(image/Wikimedia Commons, David Jolley)
