Idaho Is About To Become The First State To Restrict Interstate Travel For Abortion

require some kind of parental involvement for a minor to receive abortion care. Almost all of those states have a judicial bypass process that allows a minor to obtain approval from a court without alerting their parents, although this procedure is time-consuming and confusing, and it puts up many logistical barriers for young people who have few resources.

Idaho state Rep. Lauren Necochea (D) brought up this issue during the brief discussion on the House floor this month before the bill passed.

“There are cases where a minor might not feel safe telling their parents they need abortion care,” she said. “It could be an abusive family situation. It could be any number of circumstances that make it feel unsafe for a 17-year-old to go to her parents, but maybe she has a big sister who can help her out,” Necochea added, noting that the bill would prohibit a minor from talking to a sibling or other trusted relative about plans to obtain an abortion.

Several national health groups agree that a minor should not be required to involve their parents in decisions to obtain an abortion, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

But targeting minors is why such legislation works. They have fewer rights than adults in some situations, allowing lawmakers to litigate away critical health care for adolescents. (Just look at what Florida, Tennessee and a dozen or so other states are doing to gender-affirming care for trans youth.)

“It’s a very creative way of getting around the legality of this,” Rebecca Wang, legal support counsel at the reproductive justice nonprofit If/When/How, told HuffPost about the Idaho bill. “The phrasing of this law is very strategically trying not to impede on the right to travel but focusing more on the state’s right to interfere with young people’s medical decisions. I certainly see this as part of the trend of chipping away at the right to travel.”

For her part, Ehardt said she took on this bill because of her passion for parental rights. She is not looking to limit any adult’s ability to travel across state borders to get abortion care for themselves.

“I can’t speak for what any organization or someone else may try to do, but as far as I’m concerned this is a way to handle parental rights,” she said. “I am not interested in carrying legislation to try to restrict someone’s ability, if they are pregnant and they are an adult, to go somewhere else [out of state].”

Similar to other abortion restrictions, the legality of the bill is suspect. And since people travel around Idaho and across state lines every day, it’s unclear how it would be enforced. Between the legal jargon and constant confusion around abortion limitations, the legislation is likely to simply have a chilling effect.

“This is another one of those laws that seeks to create an atmosphere of not being able to trust the people around you. They [Republican lawmakers] are relying on a network of people around a person seeking care to potentially report them to authorities,” Wang said.

“The very real effect we will see is adults who are supportive of a young person’s right to get an abortion are going to be quite hesitant to offer that assistance, and be concerned that they might be prosecuted and go to jail as a result of this,” she added. “That’s concerning because young people, more than anybody, need additional community support to access services.”

Restricting anyone’s ability to travel looks and sounds unconstitutional. But in the U.S. — a country where the Supreme Court repealed nearly 50 years of precedent, lawmakers are vowing to surveil and prosecute pregnant people, and a lawsuit with no scientific basis is threatening access to medication widely used for abortion and miscarriage care — what’s constitutional or unconstitutional is up for debate.

“There is nothing clear about current Supreme Court case law that mandates the result that I think is right, which is that this is unconstitutional,” Cohen said. “And because it’s not clear from the case law, I think motivated judges are going to have the ability to decide one way or the other based on how they feel about abortion.”

In his concurring opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh did state that the right to interstate travel is still constitutionally protected. But since the abortion trafficking bill is crafted in a way that only pertains to travel inside Idaho, lawmakers may have found a loophole.

Rebecca Gibron, the CEO of a Seattle-based Planned Parenthood affiliate, told HuffPost that her organization will meet the legal battle wherever it is.

“This wouldn’t be the first time that the Idaho Legislature and the governor put bills into law that are unconstitutional. We have challenged them and won,” said Gibron, who heads Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky.

“There’s no way this bill is constitutional, and if it’s passed there will absolutely be a legal battle. Idaho can bet on that.”