There’s a common misconception about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.
Many people assume it struck down all constitutional protections for abortion. But in reality, it only applied to “elective” abortions — and only under one constitutional provision. That means there’s still an opportunity to establish safeguards for other types of abortion health care. And today, we got one step closer to making that happen.
A federal court has issued a strong ruling in support of our challenge to Idaho’s abortion bans. The decision rejects the state’s motion to prematurely dismiss our case, and it clears the way for us to go to trial.
Our first-in-the nation case seeks to establish constitutional protections for medically indicated abortions: care provided to protect a pregnant person’s health or end a nonviable pregnancy. All abortion health care is essential, but these situations can be particularly dire. Because some medically indicated abortions are prohibited under Idaho law, you can be forced to continue a pregnancy even if it means losing your ovaries or kidneys.
In today’s ruling, Judge B. Lynn Winmill not only suggested that medically indicated abortions may be protected by the Constitution — he also raised serious concerns about the state’s position:
- He noted that the right to medically indicated abortions “exists within a broader right to self-protection and self-preservation, which is fundamental to the American tradition of justice.”
- He criticized the state’s “remarkable callousness” toward doctors who face impossible decisions under Idaho’s abortion laws.
- And he even called out the state for mischaracterizing the views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It turns out the church has a formal statement supporting medically indicated abortion.
Looking ahead, our case could go to trial as early as spring 2026. If you’re able, please consider making a donation today to help us prepare for this upcoming challenge and the appeals that will certainly follow. Your support will directly fund the work needed to create a legal precedent that could protect patients and doctors far beyond Idaho.
