The narrow limits of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban were found unconstitutional this week after a federal judge ruled abortion must be permitted if a pregnancy threatens the mother’s health or life, including in cases of potential self-harm
The decision from U.S. District Court of Idaho Judge B. Lynn Winmill arrived Thursday and has significant ramifications on Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, known as the “Defense of Life Act.” Central to the ruling is the lack of abortion exceptions in the state’s law in cases where the mother’s health is at risk and cases where the mother’s life is at risk due to suicide or self-harm
On both of these fronts, Winmill ruled Idaho’s ban is unconstitutional
The 81-page decision said abortion exceptions for the life of the mother and not for the health of the mother went awry of protections enshrined in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees certain liberties including “health-preserving abortions” for women otherwise facing serious, lasting harm to their health that is short of death
He further found Idaho’s law ran counter to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that psychiatric illnesses carrying a risk of death that cannot be reasonably treated differently from a risk of death from a physical condition. On this ground, Winmill wrote mental health disorders bear out behaviorally but, like physical illness, originate “in the physical body.”
The lawsuit against Idaho’s abortion ban law was brought by the Lawyering Project and Legal Voice on behalf of Dr. Stacy Seyb in 2024. Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist with St. Luke’s Health System, exclusively treats women with high-risk pregnancies and had patients referred to him after they were diagnosed with conditions “that endanger the life or health of the woman or her fetus,” according to court documents
Following the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, as well as the implementation of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban shortly thereafter, patients who would have been treated by Seyb in the past — including those carrying fetuses with lethal conditions — were instead referred out of state if they wished to get abortion care
“I have been caring for Idaho patients with high-risk pregnancies for nearly 30 years,” Seyb said in a release from the Lawyering Project. “This ruling allows me to once again offer patients with serious medical conditions the option of ending a pregnancy without leaving the state and to practice medicine without fear of criminal prosecution.”
Both the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney and the Idaho Attorney General were enjoined, or prohibited from, enforcing the state’s abortion ban when a physician determines, in good faith, continuing the pregnancy brings a “non-negligible risk of serious and lasting harm to health of the pregnant woman.”
Daily headlines, straight to your inboxRead it online first and stay up-to-date, delivered daily at 7 AM
The two parties are also barred from enforcing the law when a physician makes a similar determination of risk a continued pregnancy “will result in the death of the pregnant woman from self-harm.”
Winmill dismissed the Idaho Board of Medicine from the suit, finding that while they are statutorily mandated to revoke a physician’s medical license after a criminal conviction for violating Idaho’s abortion ban, the board cannot enforce the law itself
“People have a right to abortion care when facing a serious medical condition for the same reason they have a right to self-defense,” Stephanie Toti, executive director at the Lawyering Project, said in the group’s release. “Our society has long recognized that individuals are legally justified in protecting themselves from threats of death or serious bodily harm. This ruling reduces the risk that pregnant people in Idaho will die or suffer serious injury from preventable causes.”
A portion of the ruling in favor of the state’s argument concerns cases where fetuses have conditions causing death shortly after birth. Winmill ruled pregnant women would not have the right to a health-preserving abortion in cases where a condition lethal to the fetus does not pose a risk of lasting health harms or death for the mother
These abortions are constitutional and can be banned on the basis of Idaho’s interest in “protecting potential life and affirming the dignity of children with profound disabilities,” Winmil wrote
“The Court finds that the policy adopted by the legislature, while troubling, does not cross that (constitutional) line,” Winmill wrote. “For Idahoans who oppose this law, the solution lies at the ballot box rather than the courthouse.”
Relevant to this remark, Idaho is set to see an initiative aimed at loosening Idaho’s abortion restrictions go before voters in November after being approved by the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office last month
In an emailed statement on Friday, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said his office intended to appeal the ruling immediately
“Judge Winmill did exactly what the Supreme Court rejected in Dobbs: he legislated from the bench and manufactured a new constitutional right to abortion,” Labrador stated. “The Supreme Court made clear that abortion policy belongs to the people and their elected representatives, not a single federal judge. Not only did he ignore Dobbs, he compounded that mistake by ignoring clear precedent stating that district judges lack authority to issue universal injunctions. We will appeal immediately, and we are confident this decision will be overturned.”
McCandless covers Idaho politics for the Lewiston Tribune, Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Idaho Press of Nampa and Coeur d’Alene Press. He may be contacted at rmccandless@idahopress.com
importedId:22779375
