Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 5-334 (2026)

Act or omission preventing abortion not actionable. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Act or omission preventing abortion not actionable. 

(1) A cause of action shall not arise, and damages shall not be awarded, on behalf of any person, based on the claim that but for the act or omission of another, a person would not have been permitted to have been born alive but would have been aborted.

(2)  The provisions of this section shall not preclude causes of action based on claims that, but for a wrongful act or omission, fertilization would not have occurred, maternal death would not have occurred or disability, disease, defect or deficiency of an individual prior to birth would have been prevented, cured or ameliorated in a manner that preserved the health and life of the affected individual.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1988–2018 · leading case: Vanvooren v. Astin, 111 P.3d 125 (Idaho 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vanvooren v. Astin, 111 P.3d 125 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 18× “However, the Idaho Legislature subsequently enacted Idaho Code § 5-334 for the specific purpose of overturning Blake .”
Pamela Plowman & Jeremy Plowman v. Fort Madison Cmty. Hosp., Pil Kang, John Paiva, Davis Radiology, P.C., Leah Steffensmeier, the Women's Ctr., & Fort Madison Physicians & Surgeons, 896 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 6× “§ 12-719 (Westlaw current through 2016 legislation); Idaho Code Ann. § 5-334 (West, Westlaw current through ch.”
Conner v. Hodges, 333 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 6× “As a result, we view this claim as one for medical malpractice, not one for wrongful conception under Idaho Code section 5-334. This statute permits action to be brought when “but for a wrongful act or omission, fertilization would not have occurred.”
Lininger Ex Rel. Lininger v. Eisenbaum, 764 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 2× “Maine proscribes recovery of damages in any case in which the alleged injury is the birth of a healthy child, and while not distinguishing between wrongful life and wrongful birth claims, limits damages where a child is born impaired to the costs associated with the impairment…”
Taylor v. Kurapati, 600 N.W.2d 670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “[56] Idaho (see Idaho Code 5-334); repealed by P.L. 1-1998, sec.”
Willis Ex Rel. Willis v. Wu, 607 S.E.2d 63 (S.C. 2004). “2d 315 (1984) (rubella syndrome marked by defects in hearing, vision, heart malfunctions, and decreased motor skills); Idaho Code § 5-334 (statute enacted in 1985 prohibits lawsuits in which claim is that, but for act or omission of another, a person would have been aborted);…”
Kassama v. Magat, 792 A.2d 1102 (Md. 2002). “§ 145.424 (West 2000); Mo Rev Stat § 188.”
Reed v. Campagnolo, 630 A.2d 1145 (Md. 1993). “See Idaho Code § 5-334 (1990) (legislating the opposite result from that reached in Blake v.”
Kassama v. Magat, 767 A.2d 348 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001). “17 See Idaho Code § 5-334 (2000); Ind.Code Ann. § 34-12-1-1 (Michie 2000); Minn.”
Bader v. Johnson, 675 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “§ 2931 (West 1990); Minnesota, Minn.Stat. § 145.424 (West 1989); South Dakota, S.”
Ryan Conner v. Bryan F. Hodges, M.D. (Idaho 2014). · cites it 6× “Jami alleges she was damaged by needing to undergo a second tubal ligation, the pain and suffering due to the burden imposed by having an unhealthy and unwanted child, and her increased risk of needing additional medical care.”
Amended August 8, 2017 Pamela Plowman & Jeremy Plowman v. Fort Madison Cmty. Hosp., Pil Kang, John Paiva, Davis Radiology, P.C., Leah Steffensmeier, the Women's Ctr., & Fort Madison Physicians & Surgeons (Iowa 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 12-719 (Westlaw current through 2016 legislation); Idaho Code Ann. § 5-334 (West, Westlaw current through ch.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 5-334(1) — 2 cases
Conner v. Hodges, 333 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2014). “As a result, we view this claim as one for medical malpractice, not one for wrongful conception under Idaho Code section 5-334. This statute permits action to be brought when “but for a wrongful act or omission, fertilization would not have occurred.”
Ryan Conner v. Bryan F. Hodges, M.D. (Idaho 2014). “Jami alleges she was damaged by needing to undergo a second tubal ligation, the pain and suffering due to the burden imposed by having an unhealthy and unwanted child, and her increased risk of needing additional medical care.”
— Idaho Code § 5-334(2) — 2 cases
Conner v. Hodges, 333 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2014). “As a result, we view this claim as one for medical malpractice, not one for wrongful conception under Idaho Code section 5-334. This statute permits action to be brought when “but for a wrongful act or omission, fertilization would not have occurred.”
Ryan Conner v. Bryan F. Hodges, M.D. (Idaho 2014). “Jami alleges she was damaged by needing to undergo a second tubal ligation, the pain and suffering due to the burden imposed by having an unhealthy and unwanted child, and her increased risk of needing additional medical care.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.