A federal judge has ruled that Idaho cannot prosecute doctors who perform abortions to protect a pregnant person's health or prevent self-harm. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill issued the decision Thursday, stating that the state's "Defense of Life Act" and "Fetal Heartbeat Act"—which together impose a near-total ban on abortion—contravene the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Physicians found in violation of these laws face potential loss of their medical licenses and up to five years in prison.
Both laws contain limited exceptions, including for abortions necessary to save a pregnant woman's life or in specific cases of rape or incest when a police report has been filed. However, Winmill's ruling emphasizes that the case centers on the state's authority to compel suffering for the sake of an unborn child, rather than on issues of bodily autonomy or reproductive choice. He wrote that the state cannot arbitrarily decide which life-threatening conditions warrant an abortion and that a pregnant woman's health is not a state resource to be dispensed at the legislature's discretion.
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador announced plans to appeal the ruling, expressing confidence that the decision would be overturned. He stated that abortion policy belongs to the people and their elected representatives, not to a single federal judge.
Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Boise and a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in 2024, indicated that the ruling would allow him to practice medicine without fear of prosecution. It also means he can offer patients with serious medical conditions the option of terminating a pregnancy without needing to travel out of state.
Seyb's lawsuit detailed his desire to provide abortions for patients facing significant health risks, including severe mental health conditions that could lead to self-harm. He also sought to offer care in cases where a fetus has been diagnosed with a fatal condition, when a miscarriage is unavoidable, or in multi-fetal pregnancies where reducing the number of fetuses could improve the survival chances of the others. The state's attorneys had argued that Seyb misinterpreted the ban and that it already permitted most health-preserving abortions. Winmill, however, identified a gap between life-saving abortions and those performed to prevent non-lethal harm, noting that Seyb has had to refer patients in this category to other states, including several with grave pregnancy complications who were flown to Utah for treatment.
The judge drew a parallel between the state compelling a pregnant woman to endure serious harm for a fetus and forcing a mother to donate a kidney to her child, suggesting neither can be legally mandated. He also asserted that mental illness should not be treated differently from other health conditions, calling the denial of life-saving care for threats stemming from mental illness an "affront to human dignity."
Notes from Seyb highlighted that suicide and overdose are leading causes of death for pregnant and postpartum individuals in the U.S., and that mental health conditions were the most common underlying cause of maternal death in Idaho between 2018 and 2021, according to the state's Maternal Mortality Review Committee.
Winmill's decision distinguished between abortions necessary to preserve maternal health and those performed when there is no elevated health risk to the mother. In the latter cases, such as when a fetus is expected to die shortly after birth or in multi-gestation pregnancies where fetal reduction benefits the others, he found no fundamental right at stake. In these situations, the law is rationally related to the state's interest in preventing abortions based on mistaken diagnoses and affirming the dignity of individuals with profound disabilities. However, physicians could still face civil penalties under another state law that permits extended family members of an aborted fetus to sue the provider for at least $20,000.
Idaho voters are scheduled to consider a ballot initiative this fall that would amend the state's abortion ban, potentially allowing abortions until fetal viability, generally considered to be after 21 weeks. Similar measures are also on the ballot in Virginia and Nevada, while Missouri voters will decide on an amendment to reinstate an abortion ban.