BOISE, Idaho — An update to an ongoing lawsuit Idaho News Six has been following for you, for the past year.
- Ada County District Court hears arguments in Adkins v. Idaho regarding abortion laws.
- The State of Idaho seeks to dismiss the case, claiming plaintiffs lack standing to sue.
- Attorney Plaintiffs argue the state's motion should be dismissed due to lack of material facts.
(The following is a transcription of the full broadcast story.)
I'm your neighborhood reporter Jessica Davis at the Ada County Courthouse where a judge heard arguments in a lawsuit against Idaho's abortion laws.
"We'll take up Adkins vs the State of Idaho," says Judge Jason Scott.
The State of Idaho filed a motion for a summary of judgment in Adkins v. The State of Idaho.
The lawsuit, filed last year, stems from Idaho women being denied abortions despite serious medical concerns relating to the health of the fetus or the mother.
Wednesday afternoon the State took the stand first arguing that the plaintiffs have not presented an actual case and lack facts in their argument regarding the abortion law being unconstitutional.
"We challenged it in our motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence before this court of a specific patient, specific person who claims to be in present need of an abortion," says Jim Craig, attorney for the state.
The State, also says the doctors in the suit like Dr. Emily Corrigan, have not presented facts to show they would be affected by Idaho law that prohibits them from performing abortions when abortions are prohibited at their place of work.
"They're simply relying on their members' ability to sue on behalf of the members' patients but for 3rd party standing you have to have a member who has standing to sue in her own right, not on behalf of somebody else," Jim Criag, Attorney for the State of Idaho.
The plaintiffs in this case argued back to the state, saying that the motion to summary judgment should be dismissed due to a lack of material facts.
Deadly says, "None of the plaintiffs are trying to advance the rights of anyone else, they're just advancing their own rights, so that only requires them to show jurisdiction standing. For claim three, the doctors are serving the rights of their patients."
We spoke to the plaintiff's attorney, Gail Deady, outside, regarding what took place in the courtroom they say.
"I think we really got to get across our point that this is not a case about hypothetical people, this is a case about real women in Idaho whose lives are at risk," says Deady, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Women like Rebecca Vincen-Brown, one of the plaintiffs, and her husband had to travel to Oregon to receive emergency abortion care, something she hopes she won't have to go out of the state for again.
"It was very disheartening being called not human. It just sounded very callous and disingenuous and I really hope that the judge can see it for what it is," says Vincen-Brown.
We asked Attorney General Raúl Labrador for input on the case and he declined to comment.
The trial for Adkins vs the state will be taking place in November. A pretrial conference has been set for October 23rd at 2 p.m.
