After striking down a portion of an Idaho pro-life law, a district court judge has narrowed the ruling to apply to just one doctor.

Key Takeaways:

• Earlier this month, District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled that the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses allow for abortion in cases that threaten a woman's "life or health."

• Under the ruling, a woman could undergo an abortion if her "life or health" is at risk, or there is a risk she might self-harm.

• Other abortions remain restricted under Idaho law.

• After a request from Attorney General Raul Labrador to either remove the block on the law entirely or restrict it solely to the Plaintiff in the case, Winmill narrowed the ruling to apply solely to the doctor who challenged the law.

The Backstory:

In 2020, following the fall of Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court ruling, the Idaho Defense of Life Act took effect.

Under the law, virtually all preborn children in the state were protected from abortion, with exceptions already included to protect the life of the mother:

The following shall not be considered criminal abortions for purposes of subsection (1) of this section:

(a)  The abortion was performed or attempted by a physician as defined in this chapter and:

(i) The physician determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. No abortion shall be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself; and

(ii)  The physician performed or attempted to perform the abortion in the manner that, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, provided the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in his good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would have posed a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman. No such greater risk shall be deemed to exist because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself...

Additionally, the legislation states:

Medical treatment provided to a pregnant woman by a health care professional as defined in this chapter that results in the accidental death of, or unintentional injury to, the unborn child shall not be a violation of this section.

Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at St. Luke's Health System in Boise, sued to have the law overturned, claiming it was unconstitutional.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador responded with a motion asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

The Idaho Supreme Court had previously ruled on the state's law in 2023, clarifying when abortion may be committed for the mother's health, and found hat there is no constitutional right to abortion in the state.

Labrador pointed out that Seyb admitted to never having read that Idaho Supreme Court decision, all while claiming to have no idea when he could or could not commit an abortion if a woman's life was at risk:

"The Idaho Supreme Court told doctors in 2023 they have broad clinical judgment to provide necessary care. Dr. Seyb did not educate himself on what Idaho law permits, which is required of every doctor in Idaho. His patients suffered from his lack of understanding, not because of our laws."

Earlier this month, Winmill ruled in Seyb's favor, striking down a narrow portion of the law. Winmill claimed that the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses support the right to an abortion "when a pregnancy threatens the woman's life or health."

“By banning health-preserving abortion, Idaho attempts to deny this fundamental right on the basis that the threat of harm comes from a fetus, which depends on the woman for survival," Winmill wrote. "But a pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource to be allocated at the legislature’s whim. The Fourteenth Amendment exists precisely to prevent subjugation like this.”

Though Winmill said it was "troubling" that other preborn lives remain protected from abortion in Idaho, the only portion of the law struck down was the portion regarding abortions deemed necessary if the mother's life or health — including mental health — is threatened.

The Details:

Labrador asked for the block on the law to be fully eliminated, and barring that, for it to apply solely to Seyb. While Winmill refused to reverse his decision, he did agree with Labrador and made it applicable solely to Seyb.

In his request, Labrador said judges cannot issue “universal injunctions” which go further than the plaintiffs in the case.

“[A]n injunction limited to Dr. Seyb will suffice to address the alleged harm," he wrote.

Labrador has, in the meantime, appealed Winmill's ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“A federal judge has replaced Idaho’s law with his own abortion standard, broad enough to treat even the ordinary risks of a C-section as justification for an abortion,” he said in a press release, adding:

“He did so at the request of a doctor who admitted under oath he never bothered to learn what Idaho law permits, yet sent expectant mothers out of state when he could have cared for them here immediately.

Dobbs made clear that abortion policy belongs to the people and their elected state representatives, not the judiciary. We have appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and we will fight until this ruling is reversed and Idaho’s law is restored.”

The Bottom Line:

Despite Winmill's ruling, the reality is that it is not necessary to intentionally and directly kill a preborn child, while still providing interventions to protect the life of the mother.