Idaho AG revoked legal opinion saying health care providers can’t make abortion referrals from out of state

The Attorney General of the Idaho Abortion Ban, Reply to a Law Enforcement Analysis, and an Attorney General Announces a Letter to Crane

Two days after being hit with a lawsuit over a legal opinion that said Idaho’s abortion ban prohibits medical providers from referring patients out-of-state for abortion services, the state’s attorney general said Friday that he is rescinding the analysis.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador said a letter from his office had been “mischaracterized as law enforcement guidance sent out publicly to local prosecutors and others.”

“It was not a guidance document, nor was it ever published by the Office of the Attorney General,” he wrote in the letter to state GOP Rep. Brent Crane, adding: “Accordingly, I hereby withdraw it.”

“Labrador’s interpretation is unprecedented and amounts to a clear threat that Idaho will seek to punish individuals for speech and conduct related to abortions that take place in states where abortion is legal,” the lawsuit states.

There was a letter on Friday that injected fresh uncertainty into the case filed by two doctors in Idaho and six other states.

US District Judge B. Lynn Winmill on Friday said the withdrawal does suggest “that the urgency behind the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order may have been somewhat or completely abated.”

Brian Church told the judge that the new letter made him believe his March 27 letter was never written.

Mr. Church was careful with what he said and what he didn’t say. He did not say, ‘If your clients continue to make referrals you don’t have to worry that they could face enforcement action.’ He didn’t say that,” said Peter Neiman, one of the attorneys representing Planned Parenthood and the two doctors.

“Perhaps (we) get to a point where the emergency is gone. There’s a situation where I have doctors who need to tell patients what their options are but are not sure if they can do that without facing personal risk, and I have other doctors who need to do that as well.

Kacsmaryk’s Case in the US District Court: Is Abortion Really Endangering Pregnant Women?

The judge wrote that a decision in the challengers’ favor would ensure that women and girls were protected from unnecessary harm and Defendants did not disregard federal law.

The plaintiffs will now decide whether they want to continue seeking emergency relief from the court or to let the lawsuit play out on a normal timeline, with their decision on that likely to be made in the coming weeks.

A pair of conflicting federal court rulings on Friday created arguably the most contentious and chaotic legal flashpoint over abortion access since the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the right to an abortion nationwide.

The FDA’s defenders had argued that cutting off access to abortion pills would endanger pregnant women and force them to have a surgical procedure instead of an abortion.

A US District Judge in Washington state decided to consider whether abortion pills should be easier to buy than Kacsmaryk’s proposal to block medication abortion.

Besides pausing his ruling for one week, Kacsmaryk – an appointee of former President Donald Trump who sits in Amarillo, Texas – seemed to hold nothing back as he ripped apart the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and embraced wholeheartedly the challengers’ arguments the drug’s risks weren’t adequately considered.

A profile in the Washington Post shows Kacsmaryk, who joined the federal bench, shown a strong opposition to the use of medication abortion.

He said the FDA’s refusal to impose certain restrictions on the drug’s use “resulted in many deaths and many more severe or life-threatening adverse reactions.”

The numbers would have been considerably lower if the FDA had not acquiesced to pressure to increase access to chemical abortion at the expense of women’s safety.

The president of the American Medical Association says that the court’s disregard for well-established scientific facts will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation.

As he explained why the preliminary injunction – which was being handed down before the case could proceed to a trial – was justified, he said that embryos had their own rights that could be part of the analysis. That assertion goes farther than what the Supreme Court said in its June ruling, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.

According to Kacsmaryk, the analysis of individual justice and incidence of injury applies to unborn humans.

They had asked Rice to remove certain restrictions – known as REMS or Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy – the FDA has imposed on mifepristone, with the blue states arguing the drug was safe and effective enough to make those restrictions unnecessary.

While Rice is rejecting that bid for now, he granted a request the states also made that the FDA be ordered to keep the drugs on the market. But Rice’s ruling only applies in the 17 plaintiff states and the District of Columbia.

The United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is said to be the country’s most conservative appeals court. Legal scholars were skeptical that the 5th Circuit would allow Kacmsaryk’s order to take effect.

Washington, where the blue states’ lawsuit was filed, is covered under the 9th Circuit, a liberal appellate court. It’s not clear if Rice will appeal the ruling. Garland said the Justice Department was still reviewing the decision out of Washington. A so-called circuit split would increase the odds that the Supreme Court would intervene. But given how the practical impact of the two district court rulings contradict each other, the Supreme Court may have no choice but to get involved.

The lawyer for the challengers in the Texas case, anti-abortion medication associations and doctors, said Friday evening that he had not reviewed the Washington decision, so he could not weigh in on how it impacted Kacsmaryk’s order that the drug’s approval be halted.

An attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom said there may not be a direct conflict between the decision of Washington state and his organization. “But if there is a direct conflict then there may be – it may be inevitably going to the Supreme Court, but I’m not convinced that it’s necessary at this point to make that conclusion.”