Latest Pro-Life News

Ever since the Dobbs decision, Idaho’s Defense of Life Act has faced a slew of activist attacks. Despite abortionists’ best efforts, the law remains in effect and Idaho’s attorney general continues to stand strong, saying his office is “working to ensure [life-affirming laws] are fully understood, properly applied, and upheld in every forum where they are challenged.” Idaho’s defense of life is laudable, and the state just won another victory in Adkins v. Idaho.

After the Dobbs decision, Idaho’s two abortion trigger laws sprung into effect. Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act” only allows abortion if a doctor believes it is necessary to protect the mother’s life. A doctor is allowed to perform an abortion if he has “determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.” Despite the broad discretionary deference granted to doctors, abortion activists claim Idaho’s statutes endanger the health and safety of mothers. This faulty interpretation, a common tactic of abortion activists, was rejected by a district court in Idaho’s 4th Judicial District.

Even though Idaho’s statutes contain discretionary exemptions for life-threatening pregnancy emergencies, abortion activists sued Idaho, claiming doctors were unable to give patients necessary care in a case called Adkins v. State. Doctors for the plaintiffs argued the law prevented them from providing essential care to patients. One doctor claimed he was not able to end a pregnancy complicated by previable premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) unless a woman’s life was in immediate danger. This high-risk condition may lead to the death of both the baby and the mother if untreated. He argued he couldn’t provide an abortion because the woman wasn’t facing imminent death. The context of the statute makes it clear this doctor’s interpretation is incorrect and unreasonable. It’s certainly true Idaho law allows abortion if the death of the mother is imminent. But the Idaho Supreme Court ruled in 2023 and the Idaho Attorney General subsequently argued in a related case, as noted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett that “the Act permits physicians to treat each of these conditions [including PPROM] with emergency abortions, even if the threat to the woman’s life is not imminent.” As Idaho’s attorney general explained in a press release, “Idaho law has never required doctors to wait until a woman’s death is certain or imminent before performing an abortion.”

Plaintiffs also argued the law violates the state constitution by depriving citizens of their rights to life, happiness, safety and equal protection. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims and explained the plaintiffs’ interpretation of Idaho law was unreasonable. Consistent with the Idaho Supreme Court’s earlier ruling, the court concluded the law did not contain the plaintiff’s fictional “imminent death” requirement. The court found:

“Plaintiffs’ proposed interpretation isn’t, however, a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. […] The court isn’t convinced that the “prevent the death” exception is, as a legal matter, ambiguous. […] It allows physicians to make a subjective determination, according to their ‘good faith medical judgment.’”

Media and abortionists are celebrating the Adkins decision as a win – an expansion of exceptions to Idaho’s abortion law. It’s hard to see why, however, because Idaho’s statutes were neither expanded nor limited. No one other than abortionists claimed Idaho law required the mother’s life to be in imminent danger. Furthermore, the court was careful to explain its reasoning was rooted in the Idaho Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that upheld the state’s pro-life law. The decision is a win for babies and mothers, not the abortion industry. It was the abortionists’ attempts that failed; Idaho’s life-affirming laws remain constitutional.

Despite the encouraging ruling, the plaintiff’s arguments in Adkins are part of a broader and concerning pattern where opponents to pro-life laws purposely misconstrue state law to create legal conflict. Last year, St. Luke’s Health system claimed they had to transfer patients out of state during medical emergencies involving life-threatening abortions (a claim they have been unable to back up). The hospital is suing the state, claiming Idaho’s abortion laws conflict with EMTALA, a federal statute that combats patient dumping by requiring hospital ERs that accept Medicare funds to provide emergency stabilization care to all patients regardless of ability to pay. Like the plaintiffs in Adkins, St. Luke’s falsely accuses Idaho law of preventing lifesaving measures, even though the text of EMTALA explicitly extends such protections to both a mother and her unborn child. When a patient’s life is in danger, and a doctor chooses politics over assisting that patient, he is valuing abortion politics over health and safety. Activists’ willingness to ignore the clear-cut exceptions in Idaho law – designed to protect women and their unborn children and give their health care providers the flexibility to apply independent judgment based on each patient’s circumstances – just to prove a political point reveals how little they care for the women they “serve.”