Idaho Attorney General Stands for Life After Court Rediscovers Abortion “Rights”

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization returned the issue of abortion to states, empowering them to protect women and their babies.

Since then, Idaho has stood at the forefront of protecting unborn children and their mothers. In 2022, Idaho’s Defense of Life Act took effect, establishing strong protections for unborn children while allowing abortion when necessary to save the mother’s life, as well as in cases of reported rape or incest.

But after a pro-abortion doctor challenged the Act and another Idaho pro-life law, a federal district court in Idaho became the first in the nation since Dobbs to rule that the U.S. Constitution requires exceptions to the state’s law beyond what lawmakers wrote. The ruling would let individual doctors decide when a “health” or “mental health” risk justifies ending an unborn child’s life—a loophole that would, in practice, gut Idaho’s laws. If upheld, it could open the door to undermining pro-life protections nationwide.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, along with Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, quickly asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to pause that ruling, and on September 3, 2026, the court granted a temporary stay while it considers Idaho’s request for a full stay pending appeal. As the appeal proceeds, Idaho can enforce its pro-life laws.

Idaho’s laws protect mothers and their children

Idaho has protected unborn life even before it became a state, but the Defense of Life Act put those protections into a modern, comprehensive law. Passed in 2020, the law became effective in 2022 after Dobbs. The following year, the legislature codified the Idaho Supreme Court’s clarification of the law, formally named it the Defense of Life Act, and protected treatments for ectopic or molar pregnancies and miscarriages.

Idaho’s laws have undoubtedly saved babies’ lives. Maternal health has also improved. Idaho’s pregnancy-related mortality ratio fell from 18.7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2018 to just 4.29 in 2024, a 77 percent decrease.

The ruling that guts Idaho’s pro-life laws

Dr. Stacy Seyb, a Boise doctor, sued to challenge Idaho’s pro-life laws, asking a federal court to take away Idaho’s power to protect life. He sought for the court to rediscover a constitutional right to abortion:

• When a doctor judges that continuing a pregnancy poses a risk to a woman’s ‘health’—a category so elastic that even the risk of a routine C-section might qualify.
• When a doctor concludes a woman’s mental-health condition creates a risk of self-harm, even though abortion does not treat mental illness.

On August 13, 2026, a federal judge ruled that the federal Constitution protects abortions based on maternal health risks, including mental health risks. It was the first time any court has found a federal constitutional right to abortion since Dobbs—and it shouldn’t stand.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador moved fast: Within days, he and ADF filed an emergency motion asking the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling. The district court’s ruling isn’t judicial review—it’s judicial rewrite, and it’s wrong for several reasons:

• Dobbs already decided this. The 2022 ruling didn’t just address elective abortion—it returned the entire question of abortion regulation to voters and their elected representatives. The district court’s ruling revives the very framework that Dobbs helped overturn.
• History doesn’t support a broader right. When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, nearly every state that restricted abortion allowed it only to save the mother’s life, not to preserve her general health. The district court blurred that key distinction without the required historical support. No court in American history ever struck down an abortion law for lacking a broader exception for so-called “therapeutic” abortion until shortly before the Roe decision.
• The ruling hands pro-abortion doctors a tool to expand abortion. Under it, a doctor could cite something as ordinary as needing a C-section, or a perceived increased risk of self-harm, as sufficient grounds to end an unborn child’s life—no second opinion, no requirement to verify the diagnosis.

Let’s be clear: Abortion doesn’t treat a mental health crisis. It ends a life and leaves the underlying crisis unaddressed. Mothers have plenty of effective treatment options during pregnancy that help their mental health while preserving their babies’ lives. The consequences of that kind of loophole are already visible abroad: In England and Wales, 98 percent of all abortions are performed under the law’s health-risk exception, and of those, 99.9 percent are attributed to a risk to the woman’s mental health—logged under a single catch-all diagnostic code, “mental disorder, not otherwise specified.” What was meant to be a narrow exception for rare, severe cases has become the rule. Idaho’s law was written precisely to prevent that outcome.

On September 3, 2026, the 9th Circuit granted Idaho a temporary stay, pausing the district court’s ruling while the court decides whether to extend that pause through the rest of the appeal. Briefing continues over the next two weeks, with oral argument scheduled for September 22, 2026.

The bottom line

Life is the first and most basic human right, and states like Idaho have the right to protect it. Federal courts can’t create rights not protected by the Constitution and rewrite Idaho law from the bench.

Seyb v. Labrador

• August 2022: Idaho’s Defense of Life Act takes effect after Dobbs.
• August 2026: A federal district court rules that the federal Constitution protects an abortion right. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and ADF file an emergency motion for a stay with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
• September 2026: The 9th Circuit grants a temporary stay of the district court’s ruling, allowing Idaho to enforce its pro-life laws as the appeal proceeds.