Idaho defends abortion ban in Ada County court. Here are the state’s arguments

BOISE – In a packed courtroom in Boise on Tuesday, Idaho attorney James Craig invoked gruesome images of abortion in his defense of the state’s near-total abortion ban. These are “horrendous and barbaric medical procedures,” he said in his opening statement, and described the process as involving “ripping the baby limb from limb … and crushing its skull to extract it from its mother.”

The lawsuit against the state in the 4th Judicial Circuit in Ada County was filed by several women and doctors who say the ban harmed them. Craig said Idaho has a duty to protect “unborn children” as he outlined the state’s case, most of which rested on the argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing in the civil suit. The case is ongoing live broadcast online.

The grim and obvious argument is a different approach for attorneys representing the state, which has faced multiple abortion lawsuits since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down national abortion protections in 2022, triggering Idaho laws that restricted the procedure.

The plaintiffs, including four women who were denied abortions in Idaho and sought help elsewhere, offered hours of testimony, sometimes tearful.

Where Craig’s team argues that Idaho’s abortion restrictions protect unborn children, the plaintiffs argue that the laws are enforced at the expense of Idaho women.

“The big question is who should have the right to perform abortions under medical exemptions?” said Gail Dady, a senior associate at the Center for Reproductive Rights and a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team, in her opening remarks.

“In the two years since the laws were passed, no one has offered an answer,” she said.

Out-of-state abortion testimony brings tears

Testimony began Tuesday with four women who traveled from Idaho to have abortions. They have already publicly talked about their experience in court cases first hand to an Idaho statesmanbut their testimony in court revealed further details and shed light on the horrific decisions.

Jennifer Adkins, whose name appears first in the lawsuit, was the first witness called. She said she found out at a 12-week ultrasound that her baby, named “Spooky” for her Halloween due date, would not survive the pregnancy. Moreover, Adkins was at risk of developing life-threatening complications if she continued the pregnancy, she said in her testimony.

Because of Adkins’ testimony, the state frequently objected to Dadi’s line of questioning. Craig said the details of Adkins’ pregnancy were not relevant to the case. Often, Scott allowed Adkins to answer Dadi’s questions, despite the state’s objections.

Adkins said she couldn’t get an abortion in Idaho while her baby had a heartbeat. She was devastated.

“No parent wants to be unable to see their baby’s heartbeat when they’re looking at an ultrasound,” Adkins said.

“But here I was, I didn’t want the decision to be made for us and it would end her suffering.”

Gillen St. Michelle testified after Adkins that her baby had multiple severe abnormalities that affected multiple organ systems and did not survive the pregnancy. She began to cry on the stand as she recounted a trip a few days later for an abortion in Seattle, where she attended the procedure alone while her husband stayed with their baby at a nearby hotel.

“It was the worst four days of my life,” St-Michel said. “I can’t describe it any other way. Knowing that I was carrying a pregnancy that was doomed, that had no chance of survival, every day was worse than the last.’

Kayla Smith then testified about her experience with severe preeclampsia during her first pregnancy. She became pregnant again in 2022 and was 19 weeks pregnant when an anatomical scan revealed that her baby, named Brooks, had multiple structural heart defects. Smith said her family was willing to try every option, but they couldn’t find a pediatric cardiologist willing to operate on Brooks.

Smith said the out-of-state abortion had a big impact on her.

She took out a personal loan to pay for her procedure, which was not covered by insurance, at the University of Washington. An employee there, unfamiliar with Smith’s circumstances, congratulated her on the birth of her son. She said that having the procedure in Idaho with a care team familiar with her situation would have spared her the pain of that interaction.

Brooks was born with a short heartbeat, and an autopsy later revealed that his heart defect had continued to worsen after the Smiths first learned of the problems.

Finally, Rebecca Vincen-Brown testified about her experience learning that her baby had triploidy, a rare genetic disorder that usually results in miscarriage or death shortly after birth. She traveled to Portland with her husband and baby to have an abortion. While there, she went into labor in her hotel room, giving birth in the bathroom while trying not to wake her daughter in the next room.

Doctors discuss abortion ban while trial continues

Much of the testimony Tuesday and Wednesday came from Dr. Emily Corrigan, an obstetrician at St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise. Corrigan, who is also a plaintiff in the case, testified as an expert witness about what abortion care was like in Idaho before the procedure was banned and how laws restricted her practice.

Corrigan testified for about eight hours, during which she described the types of illnesses that can put a pregnant patient at serious medical risk — but not necessarily the risk of death.

She said she sought advice from the state, other doctors and St. Alphonsus about when an abortion is legal with few exceptions in Idaho. Despite this, she said, the line is still blurred.

Attorneys for the state kept their cross-examination of Adkins, St. Michel, Smith and Vincen-Brown relatively brief, despite multiple objections to the questioning from plaintiffs’ attorneys, but spent considerable time cross-examining Corrigan.

At one point, Craig repeated his description of an abortion — “ripping a baby limb from limb” — and asked Corrigan to confirm his accuracy. Her lawyers objected.

Other Idaho doctors, including Boise doctor Dr. Loren Colson and Mountain Home doctor Dr. Nicole Acker, testified Wednesday that they had to delay and deny treatment to patients because of violations of the law. Dedi described the doctors’ situation as a “dangerous confusion” that causes health professionals to neglect their responsibilities and put patients at risk.