UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHANDHINI RAIDOO, M.D., No. 21-16559 M.P.H.; BLISS KANESHIRO, M.D., M.P.H., on behalf of themselves and D.C. No. 1:21-cv- their patients, 00009

Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. OPINION DOUGLAS MOYLAN, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Guam; NATHANIEL BERG, M.D., in his official capacity as Chair of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners; PHILIP FLORES, in his official capacity as Vice-Chair of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners; ARANIA ADOLPHSON, M.D., in her official capacity as a member of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners; LUIS G. CRUZ, M.D., in his official capacity as a member of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners; ANNETTE DAVID, M.D., M.P.H., in her official capacity as member of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners; JOLEEN AGUON, M.D., in her official capacity as member of the 2 RAIDOO V. MOYLAN

Guam Board of Medical Examiners; SCOTT SHAY, M.D., in his official capacity as a member of the Guam Board of Medical Examiners,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2023 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed August 1, 2023 Before: Carlos T. Bea, Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Lee RAIDOO V. MOYLAN 3

SUMMARY *

Abortion

The panel vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the informed-consent requirement in Guam’s Women’s Reproductive Health Information Act, which requires that women seeking abortions have an in-person meeting with a physician, or a qualified agent of the physician, who must disclose certain medical as well as other information. Plaintiffs are Guam-licensed OBGYN physicians in Hawaii who wish to provide abortion services to Guam patients through telemedicine. They point out that women in Guam seeking abortions must obtain chemical abortifacients via telemedicine, given the current lack of doctors who perform abortions in Guam. Applying rational basis review, the panel concluded that the in-person informed consent requirement does not violate the Due Process Clause because it furthers Guam’s legitimate governmental interests in preservation of potential life, protection of maternal health, and promotion of the integrity of the medical profession. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge under the Due Process Clause, in which plaintiffs argued that the in-person consultation requirement undermines informed consent because of the possibility that non-medical personnel may provide the required medical * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 RAIDOO V. MOYLAN

disclosures. The panel held that the requirement does not undermine informed consent because it does not mandate that a non-medical professional provide the in-person medical disclosures, nor does it prevent the treating telemedicine doctor from providing medical information to the patient; it merely requires that patients receive certain information in person before receiving an abortion. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiffs’ argument that Guam’s in-person informed-consent law violates their equal protection rights because it irrationally treats physicians who provide abortions differently than similarly situated telemedicine providers. Applying rational basis review, the panel held that Guam can require an in-person consultation for abortions because,