Idaho Supreme Court Declines to Stop Harsh Abortion Bans From Coming Into Effect

Three anti-abortion statutes, all of which were intended to go into force this year now that the US Supreme Court has reversed Roe v. Wade, were reportedly the subject of a lawsuit against the state filed earlier this year by a doctor and a local affiliate of Planned Parenthood.

As legal challenges to the legislation continue in court, Idaho's severe abortion bans will be permitted to go into effect, the Idaho Supreme Court said on Friday.

According to the verdict, all abortions will almost entirely be made illegal starting on August 25. However, doctors will still be able to use this defense in court if they can demonstrate that the abortion was necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life.

Another regulation that will soon take effect enables prospective fetal or embryo relatives to file a lawsuit against abortion doctors for up to $20,000 within four years after the abortion. According to the law, rapists cannot sue, but a rapist's family members have the ability to file a suit.

Planned Parenthood has also filed a lawsuit in opposition to a third stringent prohibition that makes abortions performed after six weeks of pregnancy illegal, with the exception of situations in which such procedures are necessary to preserve the life of the mother or are performed as a result of rape or incest. The law was supposed to go into force on August 19.

According to the Associated Press, three lawsuits were filed on each of the statutes by Dr. Caitlin Gustafson and Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, and Kentucky. In its decision on Friday, the Idaho Supreme Court combined those cases into one.

The supreme court determined that Planned Parenthood and the physician had not proven that enabling the execution of the regulations would result in "irreparable harm." The plaintiffs also lacked proof, according to the high court, that they had a "clear right" to a remedy or that they stood a good chance of succeeding on the merits of their claim.

“What Petitioners are asking this court to ultimately do is to declare a right to abortion under the Idaho Constitution when — on its face — there is none,” the court wrote.

The supreme court also determined that the complexity of the arguments is likely to establish new legal precedent in the state. According to the majority of the justices, this means that the concerns should not be decided until the case has been resolved in its entirety, which might take many months or more.

"In short, given the legal history of Idaho, we cannot simply infer such a right exists absent Roe without breaking new legal ground, which should only occur after the matter is finally submitted on the merits," the justices stated.

An attorney for Planned Parenthood and Gustafson reportedly told the high court during oral arguments in the case last week that the exceptions to the abortion laws for preserving a patient's life are so ambiguous that they are impossible to implement.

“That language gives no indication of how imminent, or substantial, the risk of death must be in order for a provider to feel confident” doing the abortion, he is quoted as saying. “Suppose a patient with pulmonary hypertension has a 30 to 50% risk of dying … is that enough?”

However, the court was informed by the legal counsel for the state of Idaho and the legislature that abortion has always been prohibited in Idaho since statehood.