Idaho women, physicians file suit over abortion law

An Ada County judge said Thursday he will decide within the next month whether to dismiss a lawsuit filed by four women and two physicians against the state of Idaho challenging the scope of the medical exceptions in the state’s abortion ban. The Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, an organization of more than 650 physicians across the state, is also a plaintiff in the case.

The lawsuit, Adkins v. State of Idaho, is named for the lead plaintiff, Jennifer Adkins, who sought an abortion in Oregon in April because her 12-week-old fetus was diagnosed with a condition that would have resulted in a miscarriage or stillbirth, and likely jeopardized her own health. The three other plaintiffs, Jillaine St.Michel, Kayla Smith and Rebecca Vincen-Brown, also had fetal complications that were likely to affect their health.

Idaho, like 13 other states across the country, has a near-total ban on abortions without exceptions provided to preserve the health of the pregnant patient, only to prevent their death. Physicians have said the law is unclear about when that exception would apply so that they could be safe from criminal prosecution.

Adkins told reporters the hearing was the first step in letting the state know that she and the other plaintiffs are not backing down.

“Many countless Idahoans and patients and physicians across the country are dealing with the same issues,” Adkins said. “We’re here to let people know that this is not a hypothetical situation. This is happening every single day to many families, and we need to be able to provide care to patients without the intrusion of politics.”

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based nonprofit organization, along with similar complaints in Oklahoma and Tennessee.

State argues plaintiffs’ concerns are ‘meritless’

Jim Craig, the head of the Idaho Attorney General’s civil and constitutional defense division, told Ada County District Judge Jason Scott that the Idaho Supreme Court settled this issue in January when it said that under the Idaho Constitution, there is no fundamental right to an abortion.

Craig said that the law is subjective, and physicians must exercise good faith judgment to prevent a pregnant patient’s death.

According to Idaho Code, abortions can only be performed to save a pregnant patient’s life or in documented cases of rape and incest. The law allows immediate and extended family members to sue medical providers who perform abortions for no less than $20,000, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.

Craig dismissed the claim that Idaho physicians, including plaintiffs Dr. Julie Lyons and Dr. Emily Corrigan, fear performing abortions, calling it “meritless,” and based on hypothetical situations.

“They’re presenting hypothetical facts, hypothetical future scenarios asking the court to rule in hypothetical abortion that may happen at some future case,” he said.

Both Craig and Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Marc Hearron referred to a recent case in Texas where a court granted a temporary restraining order in the state’s law that would have allowed Kate Cox, a woman whose fetus had a lethal abnormality, to receive an abortion. But this week, the Texas Supreme Court reversed that decision, forcing Cox to seek care out of state.

Craig argued the Texas Supreme Court’s decision shows that judges can’t expand the rules for abortions beyond what’s written in the law.

Plaintiffs ask court to ‘translate’ Idaho abortion law

Hearron argued the plaintiffs are not asking the state to rewrite its abortion law, but rather they are asking the court to interpret the statute and clarify what the plaintiffs’ rights are — particularly for doctors who are afraid to lose their medical licenses.

“All Idahoans have the right to enjoy and defend life, pursue happiness and pursue safety,” Hearron said. “Any law that interferes with those rights is subject to be challenged. We’re not asking for an abortion right in the Constitution, but we are asking for rights to patients with serious medical conditions.”

Lyons, a family physician and plaintiff in the lawsuit, said Thursday that she regularly hears from her patients that they are afraid to be pregnant in Idaho.

“I left the hearing today with the big realization that Idaho and the politicians do not understand the sacred right of a patient and doctor relationship,” she said. “Doctors in Idaho are afraid. We are afraid to provide simple obstetric care because of the fear that what we do with our patient could lead to prosecution.”

John Adkins, Jennifer Adkins’ husband, told the Idaho Capital Sun that he was angry after hearing the state’s argument.

“Let me speak directly to the men and say, your wives, your daughters, your sisters, your grandchildren are at risk,” he said. “It is not safe to be pregnant in the state of Idaho, and their complete silence is complicity in that.”

Adkins said he and his wife deeply wanted to have a second child, but when they discovered the health risks of the pregnancy, they were forced to seek an abortion out of state.

“The state’s response to it is to turn that tragedy into trauma and to turn us into victims,” he said. “I am hurt for my wife, and I am hurt based on what I have seen her go through.”

States Newsroom reproductive rights reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris contributed to this story. This story was originally published by the Idaho Capital Sun on Dec. 14, 2023.