Despite the promise of Dobbs to free the states from federal court interference with abortion policy, Idaho now faces its third federal lawsuit.  This last suit is challenging the new law passed this last session which makes it a felony to transport girls out of state to get an abortion without parental consent.

During the legislative session, Planned Parenthood threatened numerous times to file a lawsuit.  But they are not an official part of this case.  Instead, we have three new plaintiffs:  a private attorney named Lourdes Matsumoto, the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance.  They allege that their “constitutional right” to “help” minor children is threatened by Idaho’s abortion trafficking law.

In the course of their complaint, these folks make it clear that they have long been providing counseling, money, lodging and transportation to girls seeking abortions out of state.  They also make clear that they have provided these children with the money to pay for their abortion.  All without the slightest regard for the rights of parents to direct the health care decisions of their daughters. 

The Northwest Abortion Access Fund actually tells the court, “When transporting or facilitating transportation for minors, NWAAF does not seek or obtain parental consent.  Parents and guardians may or may not know about or approve of NWAAF’s support of these minors”.  Wow.

The parties are represented by a number of lawyers, led by Wendy Olson, a partner at Stoel Rives and a former U.S. Attorney during the Obama Administration.  She also represents St. Luke’s Hospital in its bid to gain Judge Winmill’s protection for their practice of referring patients out-of-state for abortions that are illegal in Idaho.  She is joined by a pair of lawyers who work for an outfit called “Legal Voice”.  It turns out that this group is self-described as an LGBTQ+ advocacy group.

One wonders: Why would advocates for transgenders and homosexuals care about a law dealing specifically with abortion and unplanned pregnancy?

The answer may be buried in the 35-page complaint.  At various points, these activists assert that:

• “[Children] are the ones in the best position to decide whom they trust to involve in their healthcare.” (p. 12).
• Under the new law, “minors will lose their right to make critical decisions about their health, bodies and lives”.  (p. 12). 

We can see then that this lawsuit is about more than abortion.  If they can get the federal courts to fundamentally alter the legal status of minor children in our society – they can begin transporting boys and girls across state lines for gender-altering treatment and surgery.  That also would be a violation of current Idaho law and an egregious assault on core parental rights.

The hubris and arrogance of the plaintiffs in this case are truly amazing.  For example, Ms. Lourdes Matsumoto, the lead plaintiff, describes herself as a private attorney who regularly works with child victims of abuse.  She claims that she offers counseling and help to children – despite not being a trained therapist.  And despite having no legal authority or responsibility to insert herself into a child’s life.  In the legal filing she claims that she is “driven by her belief in bodily autonomy for every citizen, including minors ….” (p. 17). 

This lawsuit turns out to be quite the revelation.  We learn a great deal about the existing web of nefarious organizations and individuals long involved in undermining parental authority and seducing children into making life-altering decisions without the protection of parental supervision.  No doubt such networks exist in every part of America, actively working to destroy our children and grandchildren.

We must be in earnest prayer for AG Labrador and his team of attorneys as they prepare to confront this deadly lawsuit.  Should these actors succeed in gaining judicial protection, one can easily see that a vastly expanded playground will have been created for sexual predators and criminal trafficking rings.  If the federal judiciary upholds notions of “bodily autonomy” and freedom of choice for children in making lifestyle and healthcare decisions, they will have laid the foundations for pedophilia as well.

Years ago, Hillary Clinton made the claim that it “takes a village to raise a child”.  A fairly innocuous slogan, suggesting that we all have a responsibility to ensure that children in our midst are properly educated and cared for.  But we now realize that the radicals behind this bumper sticker really mean something quite different:  They believe that the Village owns the children … and that parents are merely their surrogates.  My gosh.  What deadly evil.

The case is now known as Matsumoto v. Labrador, and is pending before Federal Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham.