Strict Idaho abortion ban loosened by judge's ruling on medical exemptions
An abortion in Idaho is not prohibited if pregnancy complications could cause a woman's death, even if that death 'is neither imminent nor assured,' a state judge said Friday in a ruling that loosens one of the strictest abortion bans in the U.S.
Four women have sued over Idaho's strict abortion bans. The women, who are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, aren't asking for the state's abortion ban to be overturned. Instead, they want the judge to clarify and expand the exceptions to the strict ban so people facing serious pregnancy complications can receive abortions before they are at death's door.
A representative for the Idaho attorney general's office didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the ruling.
The state's near-total ban currently makes performing an abortion a felony at any stage of pregnancy unless it is 'necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.'
Judge Jason Scott issued the ruling broadening the medical exception to the ban, allowing doctors to perform an abortion if 'good faith medical judgment' shows a patient with an existing medical condition or pregnancy complication faces a risk of dying at some point without an abortion.
The Center for Reproductive Rights said while people in dire circumstances will able to receive abortion care in Idaho, pregnant people with lethal fetal conditions don't qualify unless the condition also poses a risk to the mother's life.
'Pregnant Idahoans whose health is in danger shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant, and we are glad the court recognized that today. But this decision leaves behind so many people, including some of the women who brought this case," said Gail Deady, a center staff attorney. 'No one should have to choose between carrying a doomed pregnancy against their will or fleeing the state if they can.'
The center noted the judge's ruling also prevents people at risk of death from self-harm due to mental health conditions from accessing abortion care.
'It's been an emotional rollercoaster hearing this decision," plaintiff Jennifer Adkins said. 'This cruel law turned our family tragedy into an unimaginable trauma. No one wants to learn that your baby has a deadly condition and will not survive, and that your own life is at risk on top of that.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
15-04-2025
- Reuters
Idaho judge relaxes abortion ban in cases where woman's life at risk
April 14 (Reuters) - Idaho's abortion ban does not prevent doctors from performing abortions when a pregnant woman's life is in danger, even if her death is "neither imminent nor assured," a judge has ruled, a victory for four patients and two doctors who sued the state to expand the ban's narrow exception for medical emergencies. District Judge Jason Scott in Ada County state court on April 11 said that an abortion is allowed if, in the doctor's "good faith medical judgment," the patient faces "a non-negligible risk of dying sooner" without one. Scott said the exception did not extend to cases where the danger arises from a risk of self-harm due to mental health issues. He ruled that the method of abortion must be one that, without further endangering the woman, "best facilitates the unborn child's survival outside the uterus, if feasible." The judge also rejected the women's argument that abortion should be allowed in case of a lethal condition which would mean the fetus would not survive long after being born. All four patients in the lawsuit were denied abortions in Idaho despite carrying fetuses which had lethal conditions and were forced to travel out of the state to have abortions, according to their 2023 lawsuit, opens new tab. Scott did not explain his reasoning in the brief order, opens new tab, which is his final judgment in the case. The state can appeal it. "Pregnant Idahoans whose health is in danger shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant, and we are glad the court recognized that today," Gail Deady of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "But this decision leaves behind so many people, including some of the women who brought this case.' The office of Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Idaho's strict abortion ban had also faced a legal challenge under Democratic President Joe Biden from the federal government, which had alleged that the exception for preventing a pregnant woman's death was too narrow and conflicted with a federal law requiring hospitals to stabilize patients facing medical emergencies. Republican President Donald Trump's administration last month dropped that case, but Idaho's largest hospital system is continuing with its own similar lawsuit and has won a preliminary order blocking enforcement of the ban in medical emergencies. Idaho passed its near-total abortion ban, which includes an exception for saving the mother's life, in 2020 as a so-called "trigger law". It was set to take effect when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, its landmark decision that had established abortion rights nationwide, which it did in June 2022. The case is Adkins et al vs. State of Idaho et al, District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada, No. CV01-23-14744. For plaintiffs: Gail Deady of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Leah Godesky of O'Melveny & Myers and others For the state: James Craig of the Idaho Attorney General's office
The Independent
12-04-2025
- The Independent
Strict Idaho abortion ban loosened by judge's ruling on medical exemptions
An abortion in Idaho is not prohibited if pregnancy complications could cause a woman's death, even if that death 'is neither imminent nor assured,' a state judge said Friday in a ruling that loosens one of the strictest abortion bans in the U.S. Four women have sued over Idaho's strict abortion bans. The women, who are represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, aren't asking for the state's abortion ban to be overturned. Instead, they want the judge to clarify and expand the exceptions to the strict ban so people facing serious pregnancy complications can receive abortions before they are at death's door. A representative for the Idaho attorney general's office didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the ruling. The state's near-total ban currently makes performing an abortion a felony at any stage of pregnancy unless it is 'necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.' Judge Jason Scott issued the ruling broadening the medical exception to the ban, allowing doctors to perform an abortion if 'good faith medical judgment' shows a patient with an existing medical condition or pregnancy complication faces a risk of dying at some point without an abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights said while people in dire circumstances will able to receive abortion care in Idaho, pregnant people with lethal fetal conditions don't qualify unless the condition also poses a risk to the mother's life. 'Pregnant Idahoans whose health is in danger shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant, and we are glad the court recognized that today. But this decision leaves behind so many people, including some of the women who brought this case," said Gail Deady, a center staff attorney. 'No one should have to choose between carrying a doomed pregnancy against their will or fleeing the state if they can.' The center noted the judge's ruling also prevents people at risk of death from self-harm due to mental health conditions from accessing abortion care. 'It's been an emotional rollercoaster hearing this decision," plaintiff Jennifer Adkins said. 'This cruel law turned our family tragedy into an unimaginable trauma. No one wants to learn that your baby has a deadly condition and will not survive, and that your own life is at risk on top of that.'
The Independent
12-02-2025
- The Independent
The US states looking to ban abortion pills, punish women who seek termination
Some US states are grappling with how far to go in restricting abortion, with lawmakers considering bills to explicitly ban abortion pills and criminalise women seeking abortions. While the legislative sessions are still in their early stages, the proposals highlight the ongoing evolution of abortion policy following the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court move paved the way for state-level abortion bans. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, abortion is currently illegal in 13 states. The emerging legal landscape reveals a divide, even within the anti-abortion movement, on the issue of punishing women who seek to terminate their pregnancies. Here's a look at where things stand. Some lawmakers target pills that are used in most abortions Lawmakers in several states have introduced measures to classify the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol — which are used together in the majority of U.S. abortions — as controlled dangerous substances, making it a crime to possess them without prescriptions. Louisiana in 2024 became the first state to adopt such a law, despite concerns from doctors who contended that the restrictions would make it harder for them to access the drugs to perform life-saving procedures. The measures have been introduced in states where Republicans control the government and where there are bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. The legislation has died or appears unlikely to advance in Indiana and Mississippi. Elsewhere — including Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas — it's too early to know whether they have a chance. In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt, a staunch opponent of abortion, has vowed to sign any anti-abortion measure that comes to his desk. And one scholar who follows abortion policy said that the bills can affect the debate even if they don't pick up momentum. 'The more often that they're introduced, the more normalised these sorts of bills and these sorts of concepts that they're pushing become,' said Laura Hermer, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. The pill fight is roaring even without additional state laws Authorities in two states with stringent abortion laws have targeted a New York doctor for allegedly sending abortion pills to patients in those states. In January, a Louisiana grand jury indicted Dr. Maggie Carpenter on charges of criminal abortion by means of abortion-inducing drugs, a felony. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Carpenter in civil court under similar circumstances. The legal actions set up a test of laws in some Democratic-controlled states, including New York, that seek to protect health care providers who use telehealth to prescribe and then mail abortion pills to patients in states where they're banned. New York officials say they will not extradite the doctor to Louisiana. Since Carpenter's indictment, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a law that allows doctors to leave their names off prescription bottles for abortion pills as a way to further insulate them. Similar legislation has been introduced in Maine. The attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas and Missouri are also suing in federal court to roll back federal approvals for mifepristone and bar prescriptions for it by telehealth. Some advocates are calling on President Donald Trump to enforce an 1873 law to ban mailing medication or instruments used in abortion, but he has not done so. While critics say the drugs are unsafe, some major medical groups disagree. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says there is decades of evidence that mifepristone and misoprostol are safe and effective. The group cited a study showing that major adverse events such as significant infection and excessive blood loss occur in less than 0.32 per cent of patients taking mifepristone for a medication abortion. Medical organisations say mifepristone's safety compares to that of the over-the-counter pain medication ibuprofen. There are attempts to punish women, though they rarely gain traction Bills in several states would open the door to criminal charges against women who seek or obtain abortions on charges including murder. That's a step no state has taken so far, and which leading anti-abortion groups such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and the National Right to Life Committee oppose. Still, such bills have been introduced in Idaho and Indiana, where they're unlikely to advance, and Oklahoma, North Dakota and South Carolina, where they're all early in the legislative process. Reached by phone, South Carolina Rep. Luke Rankin, a Republican who added his name to a list of bill sponsors last week, said, 'I've always been pro-life.' When asked about the provision to allow prosecution of women seeking abortion, he said: 'I can't help you there' and declined to answer questions.
