Judge Blocks Attempt To Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Idaho Abortion Ban
A state judge ruled that a lawsuit seeking clarification on Idaho's vague abortion ban can move forward, despite dismissing some of the suit's claims.

An Idaho judge has denied the state's request to dismiss a lawsuit that argues Idaho's abortion ban law is overly vague, leading women to be denied "necessary and potentially lifesaving obstetric care."
"Idaho's interlocking abortion bans hinder and delay necessary obstetric care and make it nearly impossible for medical professionals to continue providing obstetric care in the state," reads the complaint, filed in September 2023. "Pervasive fear and uncertainty throughout the medical community regarding the scope of the exceptions to abortion bans have put patients' lives and physicians' liberty at grave risk."
The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, argues that while abortions are technically permitted to "prevent a pregnant woman's death," this description is unclear, leaving physicians unsure of when they can intervene.
Further, physicians who are found guilty of performing an abortion not covered under this exception face two to five years in prison, causing doctors to be hesitant to perform procedures that they believe are medically necessary out of fear of prosecution.
"Facing the threats of losing their medical licenses, thousands of dollars in fines, and up to five years in prison, it is no wonder that doctors and hospitals in Idaho are turning patients away—even women in medical emergencies," the complaint states. "Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court for a declaratory judgment clarifying the scope of Idaho's Medical Exceptions, and granting any and all declaratory or injunctive relief necessary to protect the health and lives of pregnant people in Idaho."
However, last month, the Idaho Attorney General's Office asked state Judge Jason Scott to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Last week, Scott denied this request, allowing to suit to go forward. Scott did, however, dismiss two of the four claims against the state made in the complaint, including the claims that the law violates the Idaho Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and substantive due process provisions. Scott also dropped Idaho's governor, attorney general, and the Board of Medicine as defendants in the case.
Despite having some claims dismissed, supporters of the lawsuit expressed optimism that the suit has been allowed to go forward.
"We're grateful the court saw through the State's callous attempt to ignore the pain and suffering their laws are causing Idahoans. Now the State of Idaho will be forced to answer to these women in a court of law," said Gail Deady, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a Friday press release. "In every state where abortion is banned, pregnant people are suffering."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ah, yes "vagueness" the playing dumb argument of Leftist sophists.
Yes "vagueness" the tool of the antiabortion crowd that will not say what they really want.
Well, some of the antiabortion crowd. Many of them say out loud that they want ALL abortion outlawed, no exceptions, and that from the act of sex until birth, a woman's body belongs to the state as a trustee for the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus.
…belongs to the state or god?
They are the one and the same!!!
Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers
Government loves me, This I know,
For the Government tells me so,
Little ones to GAWD belong,
We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
And gives me all that I might need!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
DEA, CIA, KGB,
Our protectors, they will be,
FBI, TSA, and FDA,
With us, astride us, in every way!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
My Nannies tell me so!
The State, as God does not enforce His judgements in this world.
Anglophone fundamentalists don't agree with that.
...and granting any and all declaratory or injunctive relief necessary to protect the health and lives of pregnant people in Idaho."
There are no pregnant people in Idaho. They are women.
What should I expect from a Center for Reproductive Rights, based NY, NY?
Somebody should update the Chicago Manual of Style so that the sentence should read "protect the health and lives of pregnant... people in Idaho".
"pregnant people"
Yeah, they're called "women". They can't help themselves. It's like when Mavis Leno referred to "South African African-Americans"—she couldn't make herself say "Black".
Center for Reproductionless Rights.
"necessary and potentially lifesaving obstetric care."
Given the evolving definition of "lifesaving" healthcare I'm not surprised.
pregnant people in Idaho.
I'll see your "lifesaving" healthcare, and raise you one evolving definition of a woman.
The funniest part IMO is, once again, she/they got more specific, making it more specifically wrong. Healthcare just refers to health, gynecology is, specifically, the science of women, but obstetrics is the part of the field specifically related to childbirth.
It's like describing a slaughterhouse as lifesaving food production and when someone points out that you aren't saving the cows' lives calling it lifesaving bovine handling instead.
It’s like describing a slaughterhouse as lifesaving food production and when someone points out that you aren’t saving the cows’ lives calling it lifesaving bovine handling instead.
If you were just grinding up cows that you gave no shits about, you'd just call it food production or slaughter. "Lifesaving bovine handling" just makes it crystal clear to everyone that you're trying to convince yourself and/or others that slaughtering a cow is a morally righteous act.
Sounds a lot like the vegan lobbyists doesn't it. It's amazing how many boldly undeniable leftard flags are rooted in the Pro-Life movement. Why the excuses sound just like leftardism.
Is Emma now ENB’s toadie?
Democrats abandoned "My Body My Choice".
They had to, didn't they, the day vaccine mandates were announced,
A huge chunk of their electorate simply feel what their favorite talking heads tell them to feel.
Abortion bad. Purity test fail.
Idaho law says it's not a criminal abortion if:
That doesn't seem any vaguer than your typical self-defense law.
From the complaint:
In this case I'd say no. Having a risk factor for a dangerous condition isn't enough. You monitor that patient's blood pressure. This is especially egregious because they were *trying* to get pregnant a second time. The real reason they wanted an abortion was due to the severe heart condition of the baby ("There were some surgical procedures that could potentially help Mrs. Smith’s baby, but they did not guarantee survival.")
And then:
If the prospect of developing preeclampsia terrifies you to the point where you think abortion is necessary to save your life, maybe stop getting pregnant already.
If the prospect of developing preeclampsia terrifies you to the point where you think abortion is necessary to save your life, maybe stop getting pregnant already.
As in, "You're otherwise clearly committing a premeditated murder, stop". If you're afraid of potential outcomes of your convicted rapist and avoid them, that's fear. If you invite the rapist to your home, juxtapose your life for theirs, and then kill them, you've committed a murder.
If you invite the rapist to your home, juxtapose your life for theirs, and then kill them, you’ve committed a murder.
Redundantly so across several layers:
Murderer: I'm afraid of my rapist.
State: OK, here's a free pill that's 99+% effective at keeping your rapist away.
Murderer: But I want to invite them over to my home so I can kill them... because I'm afraid of them.
State: Uh, inviting them over and killing them because you're afraid of them is murder. If you really are afraid of them and don't want the pill, we also subsidize a number of surgical options and there are freely available OTC options that you or your partner can utilize that will prevent your rapist from visiting you.
Murderer: Too late! I already invited them over so I can kill them... because I'm afraid of them.
yes.
Less, I'd say.
From the complaint:
Compassionate? I'd call this monstrous.
Babies are now at the same moral level as pets, apparently.
Not even, as killing one's pets may, depending on the circumstances, be the crime of animal cruelty, while killing one's child while in the womb is
just evacuating a clump of cellshealthcare.No different than pulling the ‘healthcare’ plug on dead grandpa being pumped with air and blood. There’s a blatant and wildly propagandatized (lies and deceit) misconception about what pre-viable abortion really is. That’s why Pro-Life (founded by Democrats) won’t stop using BS words like babies, kids, heck fully-functional adults is the picture they’re trying to paint in *IMAGINATIONS*.
It baffles me that Roe v Wade was written by Republicans of the 70s and today the Right-Wing has gone just as power-mad as the left on this subject. Talk about carrying Democrats water for them.
You're complaining about pro-lifers using the term "baby"? It was used in the complaint (as seen more than once in the two sentences I quoted above.) You think they're secretly pro-life?
People carelessly say a lot of *imaginary* things. In the scope of painting a crime *imagination* doesn't cut it. Ex: I bought a lot for my house does that mean when someone mows the weeds in the lot I can charge them with demolition of my house? Lunacy 101.
If someone operated a business where they put newborn puppies in a blender and, in the process, accidentally killed a couple dogs, the person would almost certainly be more universally despised and certainly less defended than Kermit Gosnell.
Anyone showing up outside the place of business and taking a moment between silent reflection and prayer for the lost puppies and dogs would be regarded as compassionate, thoughtful, and empathetic beyond reproach. Someone that no one, especially police, should harass for their solemn act.
Unless the dogs were pitbulls. Then, of course, you'd get the kind of people who are secretly a-OK eliminating and entire breed of animal simply to eliminate the traits that maybe are prevalent in, but not exclusive to, the breed to reveal themselves.
Try an inherently dead puppy that just got ran over by a car and someone out there pumping air and blood for it for months. To some compassionate people trying to ?save? or force alive status at particular points is just a psychotic and cruel act of selfishness. Maybe such personal decisions rightfully belongs with direct family not 3rd party gov-'gun' power-mad nosy busybodies trying to play god.
… something, something about Caesars vs Gods territory and a LIMITED government.
What baby?
"Compassionate? I’d call this monstrous."
Davy C. the Uber-Cumpassionate Cunt wants to be the arbiter of ALL things for ALL people!!! Do NOT disrespect Davy C. the Uber-Cumpassionate Cunt, OR ELSE!!! Davy C. the Uber-Cumpassionate Cunt will be FORCED to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH all of the evil-doers, 'cause He Knows and Sees ALL Things!!! ALL HAIL Davy Cunt the Uber-Cumpassionate Cunt, ye mere, cowering, insignificunt peons!!!!
"Baby" is their word, not mine. She thought of it as her baby, killed it, and is suing for the right to kill her future babies more easily.
QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?
Never, ever, have I gotten any serious answers, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be! (Could it be that the fanatics don’t want us to focus on THEIR obsession, which is their smug and self-righteous “punishment boners”?). Also, the unwillingness to answer questions is strongly indicative of authoritarianism. At the root here is the unmistakable attitude of “Because I said so, peons! Do NOT question your Rulers!”
http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/
If you're complaining about people not answering your questions it's probably because you put on such a ridiculous persona. But Idaho lawmakers have answered your first question with "two to five years in prison".
Killing an unborn endangered species is probably the same crime as killing a live one. Nobody really cares if you kill a mosquito whether it's born or not. If you're asking whether killing humans is different from killing animals the answer is yes.
"If you’re asking whether killing humans is different from killing animals the answer is yes."
Why? Who said so? Because "God" or "Natural Rights" or some other such ya-pulled-it-outta-your ass reason, if you would actually be HONEST!
God told you that Fartilized Human Egg Smells are Sacred! And God told me that they are NOT sacred! WHY should YOUR opinion (or "hearing the voice of God") be ANY more valid than mine?
She should've just fetal ejected it to ?save? it huh?
The funniest part of Pro-Life is they keep talking about 'killing' something but they won't make JUST the 'killing' part illegal. They insist on FORCED reproduction.
The Court should have dismissed all of it (especially due to a total lack of standing) but left open two claims, both asking a Court to 'declare' what the law says, but in the context of another section of the Idaho Constitution - both of which are absurd on their face 'declaration' requests. The abortion laws as written are valid under the section, and they are not vague or ambiguous at all and are very much analogous to 400 years of jurisprudence dealing with self defense.
Lack of standing? This is a state lawsuit, not a federal one. I don't know Idaho law, but standing is often easier to get in state courts.
From the complaint:
This intrigues me. Can you even do an as-applied rational-basis challenge to a law?
>>Judge Blocks Attempt To Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Idaho Abortion Ban
Judge Remands Abortion Ban Challenge Dismissal.
Another rousing meeting of Libertarians for Statist Womb Management (joint meeting with Libertarians for Big-Government Micromanagement of Ladyparts Clinics), sponsored by Americans for Superstition-Based Government and conducted at the nation's leading gathering spot for bigoted, disaffected, right-wing culture war casualties prancing around in unconvincing libertarian drag.
Carry on, clingers.
Too bad your mother didn't abort you Kirky angel, then the rest of us wouldn't have to subjected the endless Marxist garbage that emanates from your filthy cock holster. You seethe with a lot of bitterness and rage; maybe self-deletion would help with that. Give it a try and have your next of kin get back to us.
Gov-'gun' FORCED reproduction ... *is* putting Individual Liberty at grave risk. There's no other way to see it unless BS propaganda indoctrinates sheeple minds about unicorn babies running around in peoples reproductive organs which cannot be 'saved' anyways (contradiction of premise) until viability is reached. You can't 'save' a bird by shooting two birds to their death with one shot. As a 3rd party you aren't doing anything but being aggressively gov-'gun' usage Power-mad and blatantly STUPID while infringing on the 4th and 13th amendments of the US Constitution.
Either lobby for liberty to fetal ejection or just shut the F'Up and mind your own d*mn business. Seriously... What business is it of yours if a Family wants to pull the plug on a dismembered offspring???????? Nosey MotherF*ck#rs.... This isn't a machine we're talking about either --- It's a PERSONS own body....
How about we make a compromise. All progressives will be sterilized, and it's legal to abort them at any time for what ever reason
Ii>"In every state where abortion is banned, pregnant people are suffering."
lmao. I'll bet this line pissed them off something fierce: Plaintiffs attack an alleged statutory classification between
pregnant women and people who aren’t pregnant ... “none of [Idaho’s Abortion Laws] classifies on the basis of sex . . . because men and women are not similarly situated when it comes
pregnancy and abortion.”
LOLOLOLOL