Idaho Ruling Broadens Medical Exception to State’s Strict Abortion Bans

A recent court ruling has broadened the medical exception under Idaho’s strict abortion bans—meaning patients facing pregnancy complications and health conditions that endanger their lives can obtain abortion care in the state and doctors won’t face prosecution for providing that care.  

In the April 11 decision in Adkins v. State of Idaho, the judge stated that the medical exception should be interpreted broadly by doctors and could apply to numerous serious health conditions. 

The Center for Reproductive Rights brought the case on behalf of four Idaho women denied medically necessary abortion care, two Idaho physicians who provide obstetrical care, and the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians. 

The women denied abortion care received diagnoses of severe and fatal fetal conditions that also risked their own health and lives. Due to the state’s abortion bans, they were unable to obtain the care they needed in Idaho and were forced to travel out of state for care.

“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,” said lead plaintiff Jennifer Adkins. “While I was able to leave the state for care, others may not be so lucky.”  

The court’s ruling fails to broaden the medical exception to include fatal fetal conditions, unless the fetal condition also poses a risk to the mother’s life. It also excludes mental health conditions, even if the person is at risk of death from self-harm.  

“Today’s ruling will help us preserve the health of some of our patients the way that we have been trained. But we will still be forced to turn people away, against our training as physicians,” said Dr. Emily Corrigan, an OB-GYN based in Boise, Idaho and a plaintiff in the case. “Abortion has long been part of the national standard of care offered to those with serious pregnancy complications, and it shouldn’t change just because of what state you are in.”

Ruling Is Limited, But Significant Due to Trump Administration’s Action 

Recently, the Department of Justice under the Trump Administration dismissed a case originally filed by the Biden Administration that sought to ensure that people could obtain emergency abortion care at Idaho hospitals despite the state’s abortion ban.  

The Biden Administration had argued that Idaho’s strict abortion ban violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law requiring hospital emergency departments to provide “stabilizing treatment.”  

Since the Trump Administration’s dismissal of the case, Idaho doctors have been even more hesitant to provide abortion care, even in dire situations.

Doctors Leaving the State Due to Idaho’s Strict Abortion Bans 

Because of Idaho’s abortion bans and their threats of punishment—which include imprisonment and loss of medical license—many doctors have left the state. Since the bans took effect in 2022, Idaho has lost nearly one in four OB-GYNs and six of its initial nine maternal-fetal medicine specialists.   

The loss of doctors has led to the closure of some of the state’s hospital labor and delivery units. Research has shown that patients who lack access to hospitals with obstetrics care are more likely to face health consequences.

Case Background 

The Center filed Adkins v. State of Idaho in September 2023 to challenge the limited scope of the medical exception to both of Idaho’s abortion bans: a total trigger ban and a six-week ban that has “vigilante”-style civil liability provisions allowing patients’ family members to sue abortion providers for financial rewards.   

The medical exception to Idaho’s near-total ban permitted abortion only to prevent death, and its six-week ban had a similarly narrow medical exception. 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 patient has received a fatal fetal diagnosis. 

“Pregnant Idahoans whose health is in danger shouldn’t be forced to remain pregnant, and we are glad the court recognized that today,” said Gail Deady, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “No one should have to choose between carrying a doomed pregnancy against their will or fleeing the state if they can.”  

“Medical exceptions do not make abortion bans acceptable,” added Deady. “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.”   

Adkins v. State of Idaho