Rantz: Conservatives won a major abortion case that no one is talking about

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just handed conservatives a major victory on abortion by upholding key portions of an Idaho law banning adults from transporting minors to terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. But the media isn’t really talking about it.

The Idaho legislature signed House Bill 242 into law in 2022 — the so-called “abortion trafficking” ban. The law prohibits adults from “recruiting, harboring or transporting” minors to get an abortion without parental consent. Idaho only allows for abortion to prevent the death of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

While the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction that determined “recruiting” to be unconstitutionally vague, they reversed the injunction that stopped the state from enforcing the “harboring or transporting” parts of the law. The three-judge panel said the state would likely win as the case continues.

“Idaho’s laws were passed specifically to protect the life of the unborn and the life of the mother,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said. “Trafficking a minor child for an abortion without parental consent puts both in grave danger, and we will not stop protecting life in Idaho.”

More from Jason Rantz: Daniel Penny verdict is a victory for justice, but a warning to Seattle

What did the court find in the Idaho abortion trafficking case?

Plaintiffs in Matsumoto et al. v. Labrador, which includes Legal Voice and the Lawyering Project, argued that the “harboring” and “transporting” portion of the anti-abortion law was a violation of their First Amendment rights. It was a bizarre argument.

They contended that activities such as offering advice, coordinating transportation, and providing assistance to minors seeking legal abortions involved significant elements of protected speech. They called it “expressive conduct” in their original lawsuit.

They argued that criminalizing “harboring” or “transporting” effectively restricted their ability to communicate and associate with minors in support of lawful reproductive healthcare decisions.

The Ninth Circuit rightly rejected that argument “because the conduct covered by ‘harboring’ and ‘transporting’ is not expressive on its face.”

More from Jason Rantz: Seattle teacher told students identifying as ‘straight’ is offensive

This was a win?

In comments to The Spokesman Review, the plaintiff’s attorney attempted to spin the ruling as a win because it affirmed the injunction against outlawing “recruitment.”

The Ninth Circuit, in a split decision, also determined that the plaintiffs had standing because, as activist organizations, they could face prosecution and that the Idaho Attorney General could be sued because the law grants him authority to prosecute violations of the law if local prosecutors refuse to do so.

None of these findings are wins. On the contrary, it’s a spin the lawyer on the losing side provides to save face.

But not all are pretending this was good news for pro-abortion activists. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, referred to the decision as “devastating.” Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, state director of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates in Idaho, called it “chilling.”

More from Jason Rantz: Creepy porch pirates steal Christmas gifts, Tacoma police union warns they’re not staffed for this

Conservatives and SCOTUS to the rescue

The “recruitment” concern as being unconstitutionally vague can easily be fixed legislatively. With control of the legislature, Idaho Republicans can likely easily achieve this fix.

On the issue of standing and the proper defendant, the plaintiffs are likely to lose if this were to go in front of the conservative U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). The Idaho Attorney General cannot enforce the law unless a local prosecutor refuses to do so. But that hasn’t yet happened. He’s being preemptively sued.

Since Labrador was the only defendant, the plaintiffs lacked standing. SCOTUS often rejects cases on standing, preferring local legislatures and lower courts to work out constitutional concerns on controversial topics.

Jason Rantz Exclusive: City of Edmonds may close police department; officers are livid, public in the dark

This is a big win and it’s not controversial

It’s hardly controversial to outlaw an adult secretly helping a minor get an abortion without parental consent. Frankly, it’s creepy to believe otherwise. No rational person thinks a stranger or even a well-meaning friend should be empowered to sidestep a parent’s authority when it comes to life-altering medical procedures.

While activists will claim an adult would only intervene in cases where there’s reasonable fear of parental abuse, there are already laws in place to protect children in those situations. Moreover, simply presuming parents would not be supportive of a decision is not means to circumvent them. Dare we admit that a 14-year-old girl who gets pregnant is in desperate need of a better relationship with two loving parents?

It’s common sense to ensure parents are involved in critical decisions about their minor children. The Idaho law protects children from potential exploitation.

More from Jason Rantz: Pregnancy clinic in Lynnwood vandalized with pro-abortion rights messages

Abortion law stops the Left from breaking up families

The Idaho abortion trafficking law is only controversial if you’re an activist hellbent on eroding parental rights, which seems to be the cause du jour from the Radical Left these days. Look at what can be done in Washington state when a minor wants so-called “gender-affirming care” without parental consent.

Let’s also not forget the risks involved: adults could transport minors to unsafe providers or subject them to pressure from external agendas. And what about the support the child would need after the secret abortion? Parents deserve to know and have a say in these decisions because they are ultimately responsible for their children’s well-being.

The hand-wringing from the left over these kinds of laws reveals just how extreme their views have become. They cloak their arguments in “reproductive rights” rhetoric, but the real issue is their desire to diminish parental influence in favor of state or activist control. It’s not about helping kids — it’s about pushing a political agenda at the expense of families. And they don’t seem to care if they ruin lives in the process.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on X, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz