Women denied medically necessary abortions in Idaho are expected to testify this week in a trial over the state’s near-total abortion ban.
The trial, which starts on Tuesday and is expected to last through at least Thursday, is part of a lawsuit filed by abortion rights supporters who want to clarify the medical exceptions in Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. Currently, abortions are only permitted in Idaho to preserve a patient’s health. The vagueness of the exception means women have been forced to go out of state for the procedure, or wait until they get sick enough that doctors can legally intervene.
“This has got to be better. This just cannot continue to happen to people,” Jen Adkins, the lead plaintiff in the case, recently told the Guardian. Adkins was denied an abortion in Idaho after learning that she was likely to miscarry and that continuing her pregnancy could endanger her health.
“I want people to know how these bans affect real people in real life, because I guarantee you that everybody has somebody in their life that this similar type of thing has happened to. And if they don’t know somebody, it’s just because that person does not feel safe enough to share.”
In the two years since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, paving the way for 18 states to ban almost all abortions, dozens of women have come forward to say that they were denied medically necessary abortions. At least four women — Amber Nicole Thurman, Candi Miller, Jossica Barnica and Nevaeh Crain — have reportedly died because they were unable to access legal abortions or because bans delayed their care.
Similar lawsuits, filed in Texas and Tennessee, have also asked the states to clarify the scope of the medical exceptions in their near-total abortion bans. In Texas, the state supreme court in May 2024 rejected the lawsuit and let the state’s ban stand as is.
“The overarching theme of all of these cases is that exceptions do not work, and we’re seeing this time and time again,” said Gail Deady, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing the women in the Texas, Tennessee and Idaho cases.
In the wake of Roe’s demise, Idaho has become a kind of cautionary tale about the consequences of banning abortions. Many doctors have fled the state, which already had rising rates of maternal and infant mortality, or stopped practicing rather than risk facing criminal consequences due to the state’s abortion ban.
Originally, the ban only allowed abortions to save patients’ lives. However, the Biden administration sued Idaho over that narrow exception, arguing that it violated a federal law known as Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or Emtala, which requires hospitals to stabilize patients in medical emergencies. The case went all the way to the US supreme court, which ultimately punted on the case.
But the justices restored a court order that temporarily permits providers to perform abortions to protect patients’ health – a slightly lower threshold for medical intervention – while the case winds through the lower courts.
The other plaintiffs in the Idaho case include Jillaine St.Michel, who fled Idaho for an abortion after her fetus was diagnosed with severe genetic and developmental conditions that would have required palliative care immediately after birth. Adkins and St.Michel are both expected to testify, as are plaintiffs Kayla Smith and Rebecca Vincen-Brown, two other women who were denied abortions.
Two doctors and the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians have also joined the case.
The last few weeks have been rocky for abortion rights supporters. Although seven states passed ballot measures to protect abortion rights on election day, measures failed in three other states.
Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House may also lead to additional restrictions. Of particular concern to advocates is the possibility that his administration could invoke a 19th-century anti-vice law to effectively ban all abortions nationwide.
