An Idaho judge this week handed down a ruling permitting Idaho’s pro-life law to remain in effect though broadening the definition of its medical exceptions.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, passed in 2022, prohibits abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy except in two cases: a medical emergency in which a physician makes a “good faith medical judgment… based on the facts known… at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman;” or in the first trimester in the case of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.
In 2023, the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit, Adkins v. the State of Idaho, on behalf of four plaintiffs who traveled out of state for abortions after their unborn babies were diagnosed with disabilities which, they said, placed themselves at greater risk of potentially fatal pregnancy complications including preeclampsia.
RELATED: Joyful Oregon Teen With Down Syndrome Defies Doctors Who Predicted He’d Have ‘No Quality of Life’
In his April 11 decision in the case, Judge Jason Scott of Idaho’s 4th Judicial District Court offered a more detailed interpretation of Idaho’s medical exception, ruling that physicians in Idaho may perform an abortion if the pregnant woman “faces non-negligible risk of dying sooner without an abortion (even if her death is neither imminent nor assured).”
The “neither imminent nor assured” language has been taken as a win by opponents of Idaho’s law.
However, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador pointed out in a statement that “Idaho law has never required doctors to wait until a woman’s death is certain or imminent before performing an abortion.”
Moreover, Scott’s overall ruling upheld and affirmed most of Idaho’s pro-life law and allowed it to remain in effect.
Judge Scott clarified that the procedure used to end a pregnancy under the law’s narrow medical exception must be one that, without “increasing the risk of [the mother’s] death, best facilitates the unborn child’s survival outside the uterus, if feasible.” He also affirmed the portion of the law that specifies that the life of the mother exception does not permit a physician to perform an abortion on the grounds that he believes “that the woman may or will take action to harm herself.”
While he said he disagrees with some parts of Scott’s ruling, Idaho’s attorney general praised it for confirming “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.”
Meanwhile, Live Action noted that none of the pregnancy concerns referenced by the four plaintiffs on behalf of whom the Center for Reproductive Rights filed its 2023 lawsuit against Idaho would necessitate “intentionally and directly killing the baby,” even if they may have been reason for increased observation of the pregnancy or even early delivery.
Oregon Right to Life believes in the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death. Abortion ends the life of a genetically distinct, growing human being. We oppose abortion at any point of gestation. In rare cases, a mother may have a life threatening condition in which medical procedures intended to treat the condition of the mother may result in the unintended death of her preborn baby. At the same time, ORTL recognizes that modern medical practice has and will continue to increase the ability to save both the life of the mother and the baby. Read this and all our position statements here.
