The controversial abortion ban law is not the only abortion-related statute being battled out in court.

Two Hawaii-based doctors who provide telemedicine abortion services are challenging certain in-person requirements that could stifle their practice.

A three-judge appeals panel heard the case recently in Honolulu.

The two Hawaii doctors, who are also licensed in Guam, successfully challenged the law that requires in-person, informed consent counseling of abortion patients.

Attorney Alexa Colby-Molinas represents Dr. Shandini Raidoo and Dr. Bliss Kaneshiro.

Among their arguments: telemedicine was not available when the requirement was passed in 2012.

"As applied to this context where the provision of care is entirely remote, requiring in-person consent is not rational, particularly because it forces the physician to actually provide the care to delegate that responsibility to someone who doesn't provide abortion at all and may not even provide medical care at all," Colby-Molinas said.

Currently, there are no doctors on-island performing abortion services.

But the Office of the Attorney General of Guam, which is seeking to vacate the Guam District Court's preliminary injunction, argues that in-person counseling is clearly the law's intent.

"The plaintiffs here are still trying to attack the entire informed consent requirement, but really what is still at issue is this in-person component. and there is just a qualitative difference between virtual reality and real life," Assistant AG Jordan Pauluhn said. "I admit, there may be better ways of regulating a whole wide variety of things, but at the end of the day, the remedy that they seek here is something they should be seeking from the Guam legislature, to amend the law if they don't like it. Instead, we're sitting in a federal court."

But as one appeals court judge asked, will the issue be moot, because of the concurrent Guam Supreme Court proceedings over the main abortion law?

"Depending on how that plays out all abortion could become illegal on Guam, in which case this would be irrelevant," Pauluhn said.

Oral arguments before the high court are set for April 25.