Idaho Women Testify Against State’s Strict Abortion Ban

Idaho Women Testify Against State’s Strict Abortion Ban \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Four women in Idaho are suing the state over its strict abortion ban, testifying how they had to leave Idaho for medical procedures due to fatal fetal diagnoses and potential health risks. They seek a court ruling to expand exceptions within the ban, allowing those with serious complications access to abortion without needing to be at immediate risk of death. Their testimonies highlight fears of maternal health crises under current restrictions.

Expanded Exceptions Sought in Idaho Abortion Law: Women’s Court Testimonies

• Women’s Experiences: Idaho women testified on facing health risks, fatal fetal diagnoses, and barriers to necessary care within the state due to strict abortion laws.
• Legal Objective: Plaintiffs seek clarification of Idaho’s abortion exceptions to include severe health risks, not only imminent death.
• Current Idaho Law: The abortion ban only allows exceptions to prevent a pregnant woman’s death, making abortion care largely inaccessible even in serious cases.
• Healthcare Concerns: Plaintiffs and physicians say the strict law causes delays, complicates care, and jeopardizes maternal health.
• State’s Defense: Idaho argues its law protects both unborn and maternal lives, opposing expanded exceptions as unnecessary.

Deep Look

In a moving court session on Tuesday, four Idaho women took the stand to share their personal and emotional experiences dealing with Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the plaintiffs are not asking to overturn Idaho’s abortion law entirely. Instead, they are requesting that a judge clarify and expand medical exceptions to include serious health complications in pregnancy—situations that do not immediately threaten death but could endanger maternal health and wellbeing.

Under Idaho’s strict abortion law, performing an abortion is a felony unless it is deemed “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” This severe restriction led women like Jennifer Adkins, one of the plaintiffs, to feel they had become “medical refugees,” forced to leave Idaho to obtain abortions after learning that their fetuses would not survive to birth. Adkins explained that her unborn child had a fatal medical condition and that continuing the pregnancy risked her developing a life-threatening complication known as “mirror syndrome,” which can cause critically high blood pressure. Despite the health risks, Idaho’s restrictions forced Adkins to seek care out of state.

Her husband, who joined her on this journey, shared her frustration and distress. “We didn’t want to leave,” Adkins said. “But we had to.”

Kayla Smith, another plaintiff, recounted a similar ordeal. She discovered she was pregnant with her second child in 2022 and chose the name “Brooks” for the baby boy she and her husband hoped to welcome. However, at her anatomy scan, Smith received the devastating news that her baby had severe heart abnormalities and would not survive. Her medical history of preeclampsia, a pregnancy complication that can lead to dangerously high blood pressure, placed her at heightened risk if she continued her pregnancy. Yet, Idaho’s abortion ban, which went into effect days after her diagnosis, meant she could not legally access the abortion care she needed in her home state. The couple took out a loan, drove over eight hours, and paid an estimated $16,000 to $20,000 to obtain care in a hospital outside Idaho.

“All four of these women were overjoyed to be pregnant with their second child,” Gail Deady, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the court. “All of them received the worst news a mother can imagine and sought abortion care to protect their health and remain alive and healthy to care for their existing children.”

Dr. Emily Corrigan, an obstetrician-gynecologist and emergency care physician in Idaho, testified on behalf of her patients. Corrigan described how the strict abortion ban has sown confusion and fear within Idaho’s medical community, making it challenging to deliver effective emergency care to patients with pregnancy complications.

“Doctors have been forced to guess which pregnancy conditions fall under the state’s exceptions,” Corrigan explained, noting that the law’s narrow language has led to delays in critical care. “Several patients who have come to me had been denied care at other hospitals in Idaho. By the time they arrived, their conditions were often significantly worse, leading to greater complications.”

Corrigan cited several health conditions—including chronic illnesses, cancers, and pregnancy-induced hypertension—that could deteriorate without timely access to abortion care. Delaying treatment could reduce patients’ life expectancies and profoundly impact their health.

Meanwhile, the state’s attorney, James Craig, defended the law, asserting that the abortion ban aligns with Idaho’s interest in protecting “the lives of unborn children.” Craig argued that the current law’s exception for life-threatening situations sufficiently covers instances where abortion is medically necessary. Expanding exceptions, he warned, could create a loophole allowing abortion access for minor, unrelated health risks, such as an infection from stepping on a rusty nail—a condition he claimed could be treated with a tetanus shot instead of abortion.

Craig also argued that the plaintiffs were effectively asking the court to override Idaho’s legislature, something he argued the judiciary should not do. “Idaho has a legitimate, fundamental interest in protecting unborn life,” Craig said. “The law allows abortion only under rare circumstances necessary to prevent death, and changing that would be the role of the legislature, not the courts.”

The legal conflict over Idaho’s abortion law reflects broader national conversations about abortion access and maternal health following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protections for abortion. Many states, including Idaho, have passed increasingly restrictive abortion laws, sparking concern among medical professionals and advocates that these laws put pregnant women’s lives at risk by delaying or denying needed medical care.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that Idaho’s exceptions should allow abortion in cases where pregnancy complications could lead to serious health outcomes, even if death is not imminent. They contend that women should not be forced to wait until they are in a life-threatening condition before receiving medical intervention, arguing that preventative care is essential to protect maternal health.

One poignant detail underscored the frustration and helplessness felt by the plaintiffs. Adkins spoke of hoping, with dread, that her baby’s heartbeat would no longer appear on the ultrasound so the state’s restrictions wouldn’t stand in the way of her care. “No parent wants to wish that their baby doesn’t have a heartbeat,” she said tearfully, “but it felt like our only way through.”

This case, now in the hands of the judge, has the potential to reshape how Idaho interprets its abortion law and could influence the ongoing debate over reproductive rights and healthcare access in states with restrictive abortion laws. The case also highlights the intense personal and emotional toll that restrictive abortion policies can have on women and families, forcing them to leave home and bear the financial, physical, and emotional burdens of obtaining care elsewhere.

More on US News