Illegal
Idaho
Idaho argues that it can enforce its trigger ban, which criminalizes abortion.
State Legal Details
Bans in Effect
- Gestational Ban, 6-week LMP
- Gestational Ban, Total Ban
- Private Right of Action Ban
- Trigger Ban
Bans Enjoined
- Criminalization of Self-managed Abortion
- Gestational Ban, 22-week LMP
- Method Ban
Restrictions in Effect
- Biased Counseling Requirement
- Parental Involvement, Parental Consent Requirement
- TRAP requirements: Providers, Reporting Requirement
- Waiting Period Requirement
Restrictions
On August 25, Idaho began enforcing its trigger ban, which prohibits abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with exceptions for the life1 of the pregnant person and for survivors of rape and incest who have reported the incident to law enforcement.2 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturnRoe v. Wade in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.3 The state narrowed the rape and incest exceptions to apply only during the first trimester.4
In January 2024, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case brought by the state of Idaho, challenging the federal government’s determination that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)5 requires Idaho hospitals to provide abortion care to pregnant people in emergency situations,6 and stayed the injunction previously affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.7 On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court vacated the stay on the injunction and sent the case back to the lower courts for further action.8
Idaho has not repealed other laws related to abortion. Idaho retains gestational bans at 6-weeks LMP,9 a law modeled on Texas S.B. 8 and enforced through a private right of action. The state Supreme Court allowed this ban to take effect.10 The ban is currently being challenged in state court.11 Idaho also prohibits abortion after twenty weeks post-fertilization; however, this ban is enjoined.12 The state prohibits abortion after viability.13 Idaho prohibits D&X procedures.14 Idaho law continues to include requirements that pregnant people must undergo a mandatory twenty-four-hour waiting period, and biased counseling;15 prohibitions on public funding, and private insurance coverage,16 and criminal penalties for people who self-manage their abortions, but this last provision is permanently enjoined.17 Idaho continues to require that a parent or legal guardian,18 consent to a minor’s abortion; alternatively, a judge19 can approve a minor’s abortion without parental consent. However, in 2023, Idaho enacted a law that criminalizes assistance to a minor who leaves the state to access abortion care.20 Portions of the law that prohibit providing information to minors are temporarily blocked, but the portions of the law that prohibit transporting or sheltering minors are in effect.21
Idaho retains targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws related to facilities, which was held to be unconstitutional,22 and reporting.23 Idaho law continues to restrict the provision of abortion care to licensed physicians24 and still restricts the use of telemedicine for medication abortion.25 The current Attorney General of Idaho interpreted state law as prohibiting providers from providing referrals and information about abortion care in other states.26 This interpretation is subject to a preliminary injunction.27 Providers who violate Idaho’s abortion restrictions may face civil and criminal penalties.28
State Protections
Idaho law does not include express constitutional or statutory protections for abortion.29 To the contrary, the Idaho Supreme Court found that the state constitution does not protect abortion and various abortion bans are rationally related to legitimate government interests.30
Post-Roe Prohibitions
In 2020, Idaho enacted a trigger ban.31 Idaho repealed its pre-Roe ban in 1973.32
Conclusion
Now that the Supreme Court has overturnedRoe, Idaho is enforcing its trigger ban, which criminalizes abortion.
- In 2025, a state district court held that the life exception in the abortion ban to allow abortions to be performed when a medical condition or pregnancy complication would create u201ca non-negligible risk of dying sooner without an abortionu201d even if death was neither imminent nor assured. Adkins v. Idaho, Case. No. CV01-23-14744 (Idaho 4th Dist. Apr. 11, 2025).↩︎
- Idaho Code u00a7 18-622(1)(a) (2022) (stating that the ban will take effect thirty days after u201cthe issuance of the judgment…of the United States supreme courtu201d which took place on July 28, 2022). The state Supreme Court declined to stay enforcement of this law,Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. Idaho.172 Idaho 321 (Idaho Aug. 12, 2022). The state Supreme Court held the state Constitution did not protect abortion as a fundamental right, and that the trigger ban and other state abortion bans were constitutional.Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. Idaho, 522 P.3d 1132 (Idaho 2023).u00a0↩︎
- Dobbs v. Jackson Womenu2019s Health Org., 597 U.S 215 (June 24, 2022),revu2019d Dobbs v. Jackson Womenu2019s Health Org., 945 F.3d 265, 274 (5th Cir. 2019).u00a0↩︎
- Idaho Code u00a7u00a7 18-604, 18-622.↩︎
- 42 U.S.C. u00a7 1395dd(e)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) (EMTALA requires hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide stabilizing treatment to patients regardless of their ability to pay).↩︎
- Moyle v. U.S., Case No. 23-726, 601 U.S. __ (Jan. 5, 2024) (order granting certiorari and staying preliminary injunction);Idaho v. U.S., Case No. 23-727, 601 U.S. __ (Jan. 5, 2024) (order granting certiorari and staying preliminary injunction).↩︎
- U.S. v. Idaho, Case No. 23-35440 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2023) (denying stay of injunction pending appeal);U.S. v. Idaho, Case No. 1:22-cv-00329 (D. Idaho Aug. 24, 2022) (order granting preliminary injunction).↩︎
- Moyle v. United States, 603 U.S. 324 (2024).↩︎
- IDAHO CODE u00a7u00a7 18-8804, 18-8807.↩︎
- Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. Idaho,172 Idaho 321 (Idaho Aug. 12, 2022).↩︎
- Adkins et al. v. State, Case No. CV01-23-14744 (Idaho Dist. Ct. Dec. 29, 2023).↩︎
- Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. Idaho, No. 49615-2022 (Idaho Apr. 8, 2022) (order staying S.B 1309);McCormack v. Hiedeman, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Idaho 2013), aff’d sub nom.McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2015); IDAHO CODE u00a7 18-505.↩︎
- Idaho Code u00a7 18-608(3),affu2019d McCormack v. Hiedeman, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1128 at 1145 (D. Idaho 2013 (enjoining the 22-week ban and affirming the constitutional right for a person to have an abortion pre-viability)↩︎
- IDAHO CODE u00a7 18-613.↩︎
- IDAHO CODE u00a7u00a7 18-609 (2), (4)-(5).↩︎
- Id. u00a7 56-209c; IDAHO ADMIN CODE r. 16.03.09.511; IDAHO CODE u00a7u00a7 18-8701et. seq.; 41-3439, 41-3924, 41-1848.↩︎
- IDAHO CODE u00a7 18-606 (2),invalidated by McCormack, 900 F. Supp. 2d at 1144.↩︎
- Id. u00a7 18-609A(1).↩︎
- Id. u00a7 18-609A (2).↩︎
- Id. u00a7u00a7 18-623, 18-8807.↩︎
- Matsumoto v. Labrador,No. 23-3787 (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2024), affirming in part and reversing in partMatusmoto v. Labrador, Case No. 1:23-cv-00323-DKG, 2023 WL 7388852 (D. Idaho, Nov. 8, 2023).↩︎
- IDAHO CODEu00a0u00a7 18-608(1),invalidated by McCormack v. Hiedeman, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (D. Idaho 2013), aff’d sub nom.McCormack v. Herzog, 788 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2015).↩︎
- IDAHO CODE u00a7 18-506.↩︎
- Id. u00a7 18-608A↩︎
- Id. u00a7 18-617(2)↩︎
- Id.u00a7 18-622(1).Planned Parenthood v. Labrador, No. 23-35518, *7 (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2024).↩︎
- Planned Parenthood v. Labrador, No. 23-35518, *8 (9th Cir., Dec. 4, 2024).↩︎
- See,e.g., Idaho Code u00a7u00a7 18-609G(2), 18-613, 18-622.↩︎
- Id. u00a7 18-601.↩︎
- Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, 522 P.3d 1132, 1195.↩︎
- IDAHO CODE u00a7 18-622.↩︎
- See 1973 Idaho Sess. Laws 442, ch. 197, u00a7 2.↩︎
Fuel the Fight for Reproductive Rights
Your donation allows us to defend reproductive rights, change policies, and amplify voices around the globe.
