Idaho hearings underway in case challenging abortion laws

Four women, two doctors, and a medical organization are the plaintiffs in a case lawyers hope will clarify medical exceptions.

An Idaho judge heard arguments this week from lawyers for four women who have sued the state to nullify its abortion laws. 

The case is known as Adkins v. State of Idaho. Four women are plaintiffs who seek to clarify and expand the state’s abortion exceptions. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit in September 2023. Two physicians and a professional organization are also involved. Judge Jason Scott presides over the case. 

The medical exception to Idaho’s near-total ban permits abortion only to prevent death, and its six-week ban similarly has a narrow medical exception. Clarifying the laws’ medical exceptions would allow physicians to provide life-saving care without waiting for patients to be near death. The lawsuit also seeks to clarify and expand the exceptions under the two bans to ensure physicians can provide abortion care to preserve a pregnant person’s health, including when the pregnant person has received a fatal fetal diagnosis.

Jennifer Adkins is the lead plaintiff. She was pregnant with her second child when she learned at 12 weeks of pregnancy that her baby was unlikely to survive because of multiple conditions, including the likelihood of Turner syndrome, which usually results in miscarriage, according to the Center’s website. 

Adkins had been likely to develop mirror syndrome, which could lead to edema and preeclampsia, which are both life-threatening conditions if untreated. She got an abortion by traveling with her husband to Oregon with money she got from abortion funds. 

Adkins testified this week. Other plaintiffs include Jillaine St. Michel, Kayla Smith, and Rebecca Vincen-Brown. 

St. Michel, of Meridian, was pregnant with her second child when her 20-week ultrasound revealed that her baby had several severe developmental and chromosomal conditions affecting multiple organ systems. It was unlikely to survive. After St. Michel and her husband had reached out to several out-of-state abortion clinics, she was able to get an abortion at a clinic in Seattle, Washington. 

Smith, of Nampa, pregnant with her second child, learned at her 19-week ultrasound scan that her baby had a likely fatal and inoperable heart condition. Since she had previously developed preeclampsia during her first pregnancy, Smith had a heightened risk of developing preeclampsia again if she carried the pregnancy to term. She and her husband traveled to Seattle, Washington, to get an abortion. She had to take out a personal loan and get money from friends and family to pay for the trip, which cost thousands of dollars. 

Vincen-Brown, of Ada County, pregnant with her second child, discovered at a 16-week anatomy scan that her baby had several fatal fetal conditions—including a chromosomal condition and significant cardiac conditions—and was unlikely to survive. She risked developing preeclampsia or severe hemorrhaging if she continued the pregnancy. Vincen-Brown, her husband, and their daughter drove seven hours to Portland, Oregon, to get an abortion. After the first day of her abortion procedure, she passed her pregnancy in the hotel bathroom the next morning.

The plaintiff’s lawyers are not seeking to get the court to rule that the state should permit abortions in all situations. They are trying to get clarity in situations in which an exception should permit abortions when a woman’s life is at risk. Gail Deady gave the plaintiffs’ opening statement on Tuesday. 

“The State appears to believe that the lives and health of living, breathing, pregnant Idahoan–people's sisters, mothers, wives, friends–are inherently less valuable than a developing fetus or embryo,” Deady said. “And that continued pregnancy and childbirth must be forced in all situations and at all costs, except when both the woman and the developing pregnancy would be lost without an abortion. 

“Now, plaintiffs have a different view, and plaintiffs will show that the Idaho Constitution demands more than that. The lives and health of pregnant people are worthy of protection, which is the bare minimum of what is required under the law.”

James Craig, the attorney representing the state of Idaho in the case, also gave his opening statement. He said that abortion regulation should be left to the state legislature instead of through judicial interpretation. 

“They are asking the court to declare that women have a right to kill their unborn child for no other reason than the fact that the baby is disabled,” Craig said. “They're asking the court to declare that women have a right to kill their baby, their unborn child, any time they have a risk of infection.” 

The last two days have featured testimony from the women and medical experts. The hearing is expected to run through Nov. 21. I’ll cover it more as it develops.