Idaho Professors Sue Over Law Restricting Abortion Discussions in Class

In Idaho, public university professors are avoiding classroom discussions about abortion, citing legal risks under a 2021 state law that prohibits state employees from "promoting abortion" or "counseling in favor of abortion." The law, known as the No Public Funds for Abortion Act, carries penalties including fines and potential prison time. The vagueness of the terms "promote" and "counsel" has led professors to alter their curricula or remove abortion-related content from their courses.

Eight plaintiffs, including six named University of Idaho professors and two faculty unions, filed a lawsuit in August challenging the law on First Amendment grounds, arguing it violates their rights to free speech and academic freedom. They also claim the law is unconstitutionally vague under the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, seeks clarity on whether the law restricts professors' ability to teach and conduct scholarship on abortion as an ethical, political, and historical issue.

Aleta Quinn, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Idaho and a plaintiff in the case, expressed concerns about teaching her biomedical ethics course, which typically includes discussions on abortion. "The more I heard about it, the more worried I was that I really can’t teach my class in a responsible way without putting myself at risk," she stated. Quinn decided against teaching abortion-related topics due to the potential legal consequences.

The lawsuit highlights a broader constitutional question: whether public university professors are exempt from laws regulating state employees' speech when performing professional duties. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue since a 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which left open the possibility that academic freedom may warrant special protections.

State attorneys argue that the law does not apply to classroom teaching or scholarship, citing a non-binding opinion issued by Idaho's attorney general in September. The opinion states that the law does not prohibit "teaching or scholarship" by public university professors and that a prohibition to the contrary would likely be unconstitutional. However, the state’s lawyers contend that the professors are misinterpreting the law, which they argue only restricts advising specific individuals to have an abortion.

The plaintiffs dispute this interpretation, pointing to varied judicial rulings on the meaning of "promote" and hypothetical scenarios where professors could face prosecution. Helen Norton, a constitutional law professor at the University of Colorado not involved in the case, noted that the ambiguity of the terms "promote" and "counsel" is central to the dispute. "That’s shown so far to be the focus of the dispute — what does ‘promoting’ or ‘counseling’ mean?" she said. "And it seems like that’s an important thing to nail down."

The lawsuit follows the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which led Idaho to implement a near-total ban on abortion. Despite this significant change in state law, many public university professors in Idaho have avoided discussing the topic in their courses. One English professor named in the lawsuit, for example, removed Sallie Tisdale’s 1987 Harper’s Magazine essay, "We Do Abortions Here," from his syllabus. The essay explores the morality of abortion through the lens of the author’s experience working in an abortion clinic.

In response to the legal challenges, state Rep. Bruce Skaug, the sponsor of the No Public Funds for Abortion Act, introduced legislation in 2023 to explicitly protect classroom discussions of abortion. However, the bill failed to pass. Skaug has not responded to requests for comment.

The state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit argues that the professors have not demonstrated an actual or imminent threat of prosecution, as the attorney general’s opinion and the law’s plain language clarify that teaching and scholarship are not prohibited. The lawsuit remains ongoing, with the central dispute focusing on the interpretation and constitutionality of the law’s language.