Federal District Court Rules U.S. Constitution Protects Right to Abortion for Health Reasons

Court bars Idaho from enforcing abortion bans when a patient’s life or health is threatened 

08.13.2026  (PRESS RELEASE) –Yesterday, a federal district court in Idaho ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects a pregnant person’s right to abortion when their life or health is threatened.  The decision invalidated a pair of Idaho laws to the extent that they prohibit doctors from providing abortion care to patients with serious medical conditions, including mental health conditions that put patients at risk of suicide or overdose.

Based on a careful examination of the historical record, the court concluded that the right to end a pregnancy for health reasons is deeply rooted in American history and tradition.  “For centuries,” the decision declares, “states have protected abortions that are necessary to prevent serious and lasting harm to the health of the pregnant woman.  By prohibiting women from obtaining essential medical care when pregnancy poses a severe danger, Idaho contradicts this long tradition and the underlying right to defend oneself from harm.”  The court also found that Idaho’s laws embody “an outlier position that contravenes basic principles of our constitutional order.”

The legal challenge was brought by the Lawyering Project and Legal Voice on behalf of Dr. Stacy Seyb (he/him), an Idaho maternal-fetal medicine specialist.

“I have been caring for Idaho patients with high-risk pregnancies for nearly 30 years,” said Dr Stacy Seyb, the plaintiff in the legal challenge.  “This ruling allows me to once again offer patients with serious medical conditions the option of ending a pregnancy without leaving the state and to practice medicine without fear of criminal prosecution.”

This is the first court ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to recognize that the federal Constitution continues to protect the right to abortion in certain circumstances.

“People have a right to abortion care when facing a serious medical condition for the same reason they have a right to self-defense,” said Stephanie Toti, Executive Director at the Lawyering Project.  “Our society has long recognized that individuals are legally justified in protecting themselves from threats of death or serious bodily harm.  This ruling reduces the risk that pregnant people in Idaho will die or suffer serious injury from preventable causes.”     

Yesterday’s ruling arrives after the court held a six-day trial in June regarding the constitutionality of Idaho’s abortion bans.

“The court’s decision is a major victory for safe pregnancy in Idaho, ensuring that doctors and hospitals no longer need to delay or deny care to pregnant patients out of fear of the abortion bans’ penalties,” said Wendy Heipt, senior litigation counsel for Legal Voice. “Legal Voice is proud to be a part of the effort to ensure that Idahoans can access the treatment they need to live healthier lives.”

The Court declined to block the abortion bans when an embryo or fetus has a life-limiting condition, unless the condition also poses a serious threat to the pregnant person’s health, holding that the Constitution affords the legislature discretion to ban abortion in those circumstances.  The decision states:  “Some may find the law cruel.  And the Court fully understands and appreciates that sentiment.  Pregnant women faced with a devastating fetal diagnosis must either bear the challenges of pregnancy while waiting to watch their child die or flee the state to receive appropriate medical care …. For Idahoans who oppose this law, the solution lies at the ballot box rather than the courthouse.”  

Proposition 1, set to appear on the Idaho ballot in November, will give Idaho citizens the opportunity to create a right to reproductive freedom, including broad access to pre-viability abortion.  

Case History

Dr. Seyb filed this federal lawsuit against the state and local officials charged with enforcing Idaho’s abortion bans in 2024, arguing that abortion remains constitutionally protected when sought for medical reasons.  In June 2025, Attorney General Raúl Labrador intervened as a defendant.

Before yesterday’s ruling, Idaho prohibited abortion care throughout pregnancy except in some — but not all — cases where abortion was necessary to save a pregnant person’s life and some — but not all — cases where a pregnant person survived a sexual assault.  Doctors were banned from providing abortions in a wide variety of circumstances where continued pregnancy jeopardized a patient’s health or a patient was carrying an embryo or fetus with a life-limiting condition.

Notably, the laws blocked today did not permit abortion when a pregnant person was battling a serious mental health condition that put them at risk of death from self-harm, even though suicide and overdose are among the leading causes of death for pregnant and post-partum people in the United States.  According to Idaho’s own maternal mortality review committee (MMRC), from 2018 to 2024, the most recent period for which data are currently available, mental health conditions constituted the most common underlying cause of pregnancy-related death in Idaho.

After publishing its 2023 annual report, the MMRC (operating under the auspices of the Idaho Board of Medicine) changed the methodology it uses to count deaths from suicide in an apparent attempt, in the wake of Dr. Seyb’s lawsuit, to hide how many of these deaths are occurring in Idaho.

In its 2023 report, the MMRC noted that: “Idaho’s 2023 Pregnancy-Related Death (PRD) findings highlight that women with pre-existing health conditions have a higher risk of dying during pregnancy and for a year after childbirth …. Three (3) of the five (5) Pregnancy-Related Deaths had a mental health condition as a pre-existing condition.”  The 2024 report, however, indicates that the MMRC is no longer classifying deaths from suicide as pregnancy-related deaths if the victim of maternal mortality had a pre-existing history of suicidal ideation or attempted suicide.  This change is out of step with how MMRCs across the country treat maternal deaths from suicide and is likely to result in undercounting the number of those deaths that are pregnancy-related.

###