Women who have been 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 begins Tuesday and is expected to last through Thursday, is part of a lawsuit filed by abortion rights advocates seeking to clarify medical exemptions in Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. Currently, abortions in Idaho are only allowed to preserve a patient’s health. The vagueness of the exception means women are forced to leave the state for the procedure, or wait until they become sick enough for doctors to legally intervene.
“This has to be better. This just can’t keep happening to people,” Jen Adkins, the lead prosecutor in the case, said recently told the Guardian. Adkins was denied an abortion in Idaho after learning 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 everyone has someone in their life who this kind of thing has happened to. And if they don’t know someone, it’s only because that person doesn’t feel safe enough to share.”
In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, it paved the way for In 18 states that have banned nearly all abortions, dozens of women have come forward to say they were denied medically necessary abortions. At least four women — Amber Nicole Thurman, Candi Molenaar, Jessica Barnica And Nevaeh Crain – have reportedly died because they did not have access to legal abortions or because bans delayed their care.
Similar lawsuits filed in Texas and Tennessee have done just that also asked states to clarify the scope of the medical exceptions in their near-total abortion bans. In Texas, the state Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit in May 2024, allowing the state to proceed ban remains as it is.
“The overarching theme of all these cases is that exceptions don’t work, and we see this time and time again,” said Gail Deady, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents women in the state of Texas. , Tennessee and Idaho cases.
In the wake of Roe’s passing, Idaho has become something of a cautionary tale about the consequences of banning abortions. Many doctors have fled the state, where maternal and infant mortality was already rising, or stopped practicing because they did not want to risk criminal consequences as a result of state aid. abortion ban.
Originally, the ban only allowed abortions to save the lives of patients. However, the Biden administration has taken Idaho to court over that narrow exception, arguing that it violated a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or Emtala, which requires hospitals to admit patients in medical emergencies stabilize. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately heard the case.
But the justices reinstated a court order temporarily allowing providers to perform abortions to protect patients’ health — a slightly lower threshold for medical intervention — while the case winds its way 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 serious genetic and developmental defects 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 past few weeks have been difficult for abortion rights advocates. Although seven states passed ballot measures to protect abortion rights on Election Day, the measures failed in three other states.
Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House could also lead to additional restrictions. Of particular interest to lawyers is the possibility his government could rely on a 19th century anti-vice law that effectively bans all abortions nationwide.