In an 81-page decision, Judge B. Lynn Winmill found the state’s near-total ban unconstitutional insofar as it permits abortion only to prevent death. Lawyers for the plaintiff call it the first ruling of its kind since Dobbs. The court’s analysis centred on the Idaho abortion law health exception and its legal implications.
BOISE, Idaho — A federal judge has ruled that Idaho may not prosecute physicians who perform abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health or to prevent her from harming herself. This decision narrows one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. Lawyers describe it as the first of its kind since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill issued the ruling Thursday. He found that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and Fetal Heartbeat Act — which together create a near-total prohibition — violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, they do so to the extent they bar care for patients with serious medical conditions.
The case is not about bodily autonomy or reproductive choice, Winmill wrote in the 81-page decision. Instead, it is about the limit of the state’s power to make a woman suffer for the sake of an unborn child. The state, he wrote, cannot pick and choose which life-threatening conditions justify an abortion. “A pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource,” he wrote.
Winmill extended the ruling to mental health, an area courts have generally avoided. In his ruling, he wrote that physicians use empirical tools to assess suicide risk reliably. Moreover, he stated it is an affront to human dignity to deny a pregnant woman lifesaving care. This is true because the threat originates in a mental health condition rather than a physical one.
Idaho Physicians Can Face Up to Two to Five Years in Prison
Under Idaho law, a physician who performs an abortion outside the statutory exceptions could face up to two to five years in prison and loss of licensure. The exceptions are narrow: to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, to treat ectopic or molar pregnancies, and in cases of rape or incest in the first trimester where a police report has been filed.
The suit was brought in 2024 by Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Boise. Seyb said the ruling will let him practice without fear of prosecution. In addition, he can now offer patients with serious medical conditions the option of ending a pregnancy without leaving the state.
The injunction blocks the Idaho attorney general and the Ada County prosecutor from enforcing the two laws in those circumstances. However, its practical reach is narrower than it may appear. The criminal ban remains in effect for everything outside the exceptions the ruling carves out. Also, the civil cause of action created by the Heartbeat Act is untouched.
That point was made forcefully by the ruling’s opponents. Blaine Conzatti, President of the Idaho Family Policy Center, wrote that any physician performing an abortion prohibited by the Heartbeat Act can still be sued. He stated that “the IFPC Legal Center stands ready to hold doctors accountable” who perform abortions he considers illegal. In addition, he said he expects the decision to be overturned, arguing that the Constitution does not protect abortion for mental health reasons.
The office of Attorney General Raul Labrador said in an email Friday that the state would appeal immediately. It also accused the judge of doing what the Supreme Court rejected in Dobbs. Winmill, the office wrote, “legislated from the bench and manufactured a new constitutional right to abortion.”
Winmill, who was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1995, is not new to the litigation surrounding Idaho’s ban. In 2022 he heard the Justice Department’s challenge arguing that the state law conflicted with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. This law obliges hospitals receiving Medicare funds to stabilize emergency patients. That case reached the Supreme Court. In 2024, the Court sent it back to the Ninth Circuit on procedural grounds without addressing the merits. Therefore, the underlying conflict remains unresolved.
Idaho and roughly a dozen other states have banned nearly all abortions since the 2022 Dobbs decision returned regulation to the states. Several more impose severe restrictions. A number of challenges remain pending.
Idaho physicians have said for years that the statutes are ambiguous about when they may intervene, leaving them to guess how close to death a patient must be. A separate state court ruling last year by District Judge Jason D. Scott held that the ban does not criminalize an abortion. This applies when a doctor determines in good faith that a patient faces a non-negligible risk of dying sooner without one. However, Scott expressly excluded risk of self-harm, the ground Winmill has now covered.
Abortion is likely to appear on the Idaho ballot. Two candidates in the governor’s race, Pickens and Stegner, have said they support an abortion-rights ballot initiative.
SOURCES: AP (Rebecca Boone) via WJTV — ruling, Winmill quotes, Seyb · Reuters (Daniel Wiessner) — first such ruling since Dobbs · Boise State Public Radio — mental-health reasoning, Labrador response · Idaho Capital Sun — scope of injunction, civil liability · Spokane Public Radio — Conzatti statement
