Idaho judge expands medical exception to abortion ban
The ban remains in effect while the rulings clarify what had been ambiguous about life-saving care.
In Idaho, a state judge expanded the circumstances in which an abortion exception would work.
Judge Jason D. Scott issued the ruling in a case that involved a medical exception to Idaho’s near-total ban that permits abortion only to prevent death. Lawyers hoped clarifying the laws’ medical exceptions would allow physicians to provide life-saving care without waiting for patients to be near death.
The lawsuit also sought to clarify and expand the exceptions under the two bans to ensure physicians can provide abortion care to preserve a pregnant person’s health, including when the pregnant person has received a fatal fetal diagnosis. The plaintiffs included four women who couldn’t get abortion care under the ban, two doctors who couldn’t give it, and a medical association concerned about the law.
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed this lawsuit on September 11, challenging the limited scope of the medical exceptions to both of Idaho’s abortion bans: a total trigger ban and a six-week ban that has “vigilante”-style civil liability provisions.
The court held hearings in November about the case. Jennifer Adkins was the lead plaintiff. She was pregnant with her second child when she learned at 12 weeks of pregnancy that her baby was unlikely to survive because of multiple conditions, including the likelihood of Turner syndrome, which usually results in miscarriage, according to the Center’s website.
Adkins had been likely to develop mirror syndrome, which could lead to edema and preeclampsia, which are both life-threatening conditions if untreated. She got an abortion by traveling with her husband to Oregon with money she got from abortion funds.
Adkins testified this week. Other plaintiffs include Jillaine St. Michel, Kayla Smith, and Rebecca Vincen-Brown.
St. Michel, of Meridian, was pregnant with her second child when her 20-week ultrasound revealed that her baby had several severe developmental and chromosomal conditions affecting multiple organ systems. It was unlikely to survive. After St. Michel and her husband had reached out to several out-of-state abortion clinics, she was able to get an abortion at a clinic in Seattle, Washington.
Smith, of Nampa, pregnant with her second child, learned at her 19-week ultrasound scan that her baby had a likely fatal and inoperable heart condition. Since she had previously developed preeclampsia during her first pregnancy, Smith had a heightened risk of developing preeclampsia again if she carried the pregnancy to term. She and her husband traveled to Seattle, Washington, to get an abortion. She had to take out a personal loan and get money from friends and family to pay for the trip, which cost thousands of dollars.
Vincen-Brown, of Ada County, pregnant with her second child, discovered at a 16-week anatomy scan that her baby had several fatal fetal conditions—including a chromosomal condition and significant cardiac conditions—and was unlikely to survive. She risked developing preeclampsia or severe hemorrhaging if she continued the pregnancy. Vincen-Brown, her husband, and their daughter drove seven hours to Portland, Oregon, to get an abortion. After the first day of her abortion procedure, she passed her pregnancy in the hotel bathroom the next morning.
Emily Corrigan and Julie Lyons were the two doctors. The organization was the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians. When Lyons testified on Nov. 20, 2024, the physician said she came from Blaine County, a rural area in Idaho. Dr. Corrigan specializes in treating patients with complicated pregnancies, including by performing a few abortions per year, both before and after Idaho’s Abortion Laws took effect.
Several other doctors had testified in the case that painted the dire picture in Idaho surrounding maternal care. They described specific circumstances where Idaho’s abortion ban had hurt patients and affected medical decisions.
For the state, they called Dr. Ingrid Skop, a controversial antiabortion doctor who has called for questionable techniques in situations for which abortions were called.
The judge’s ruling said physicians had been confused by the unclear language in the state’s ban, which led to delays in needed care.
Idaho’s Attorney General Raul Labrador sent a news release on the decision.
“While we still disagree with portions of the ruling, it confirms what my office has argued in courts from Boise to Washington, D.C.—that Idaho’s abortion laws are constitutional and protect both unborn children and their mothers,” Labrador said. “Idaho law has never required doctors to wait until a woman’s death is certain or imminent before performing an abortion.”
While people in these dire circumstances will now be able to receive abortion care in Idaho safely, the court ruled that pregnant people with lethal fetal conditions do not qualify under the ban’s exception unless the fetal condition also poses a risk to the mother’s life.
The court also ruled that people at risk of death from self-harm due to mental health conditions cannot access abortion care. Today’s ruling comes after the court heard testimony from the four women who brought the case, all of whom were denied abortions despite doomed pregnancies due to lethal fetal diagnoses. They were forced to travel hundreds of miles out of state for care.
Gail Deady, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said she was glad with the decision but that it left many people behind, including some of the people who brought the case.
“No one should have to choose between carrying a doomed pregnancy against their will or fleeing the state if they can,” said Gail Deady, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Medical exceptions do not make abortion bans acceptable. Too many are suffering in Idaho and across the country. We will not give up until everyone has the freedom to make their own pregnancy decisions.”