An Idaho state judge appeared to slightly broaden access to abortion there by ruling Friday that the exception to the state's ban would not require women to face imminent death.
The country's strictest Idaho ban bans ban abortions in almost all cases. One exception is when it is necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. Judge Jason D. Scott ruled that if doctors determine that if the woman is not, she is more likely to die sooner without an abortion, then her death is “immediate, unguaranteed.”
The ruling, which maintained the law, handed out a partial victory to reproductive advocates and Idaho doctors who said they forced patients to wait for them to reach the brink of death or rush to get care elsewhere before they could act.
“I feel very relieved,” said one of the plaintiffs, Idaho obstetrician Dr. Emily Corrigan. “I think there are more case scenarios when a patient's condition applies straight to that exception.”
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, one of the defendants, said in a statement that Idaho law never required doctors to wait until a woman's death was certain or imminent before offering an abortion. “We still don't agree with some of the rulings, but we're confirming what my office claimed in court from Boise to Washington, D.C. The Idaho abortion law is constitutional and protects both the fetus and the mother,” he said.
It was unclear whether his office would appeal the decision on Saturday.
The Idaho ruling comes from a lawsuit filed in September 2023 by the Reproductive Rights Center. They are reproductive rights centres on behalf of four women who have said they must leave the state to have an abortion after facing serious health risks or finding out that their fetus cannot survive. The lawsuit was joined by another physician and a family physician organization, Dr. Corrigan.
The plaintiffs argued that state law should allow abortion if it is safe to continue pregnancy or if the fetus is diagnosed as a fatal condition.
Idaho's fourth district Judge Scott refused the allegation that abortion should be permitted when the plaintiffs wanted and when the unborn baby does not survive.
However, he discovered that doctors could offer abortions at medical judgment when patients “facing an unnecessarily risk of dying early without an abortion.” The judge will not apply if the risk arises from potential self-harm.
The leading plaintiff, Jennifer Adkins, 33, was pregnant with her second child when she told her that her fetus had a rare genetic condition that had a high mortality rate and that her pregnancy was probably insurviving. Doctors said if Adkins doesn't have a miscarriage, she is at high risk of developing a life-threatening condition called Miller Syndrome. Adkins, who lives in Caldwell, Idaho, near Boise, eventually traveled 400 miles to Portland, Oregon for an abortion.
She said in an interview that she believes the judge's ruling allowed her to take care of her in her hometown.
“It was incredibly challenging and incredibly sad in a place full of strangers who are not surrounded by family, friends and providers you know and trust, where you have to lose the baby you really wanted,” she said.
In another case filed shortly after the Supreme Court overturned the national abortion right in 2022, the Biden administration sued Idaho over abortion ban, claiming that the strict restrictions on the ban violated federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care, including ambulances, to patients.
Idaho argued that the ban was governed by federal laws called Emergency Care and Labor Law or Emtala. Last year, the Supreme Court handed the Biden administration a temporary victory and returned the case to a lower court that put the ban on hold. However, under the Trump administration, the Justice Department has dropped the lawsuit and cleared the way for the ban to become fully effective.
In a similar lawsuit filed by the state's largest hospital system, St. Luke's Health System, a federal judge issued an order last month to protect doctors from prosecutors if they provide an emergency abortion.
Dr. Corrigan said Friday's ruling would provide clarity to doctors across the state.
The ruling applies only in Idaho, but abortion rights advocates said they showed the need for clearer and broader exemptions in other states that strictly prohibit abortion.
“The problem is whether it's Idaho or Texas or any other state with a serious abortion ban, doctors are very conservative and very litigation-averse, and very risk-averse,” says Laura Helmer, a professor at Mitchell Hamline Law School, whose research focuses on reproductive rights. “The state is committed to putting this burden on healthcare providers.”
Many abortion opponents agree with Labrador's claim that existing exceptions are clear and that doctors are clear who otherwise argue that they misunderstood the law.
Eleven other states have banned abortions in almost all circumstances. Legal efforts to expand these state exemptions have resulted in a variety of results.
The Texas Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit seeking to extend the state's medical emergency exception, finding that abortion for women facing life-threatening conditions has already been permitted before death or serious disability is imminent.
Tennessee has a similar lawsuit pending as in Idaho.
