BOISE, Idaho — On day four of the trial in Adkins v. Idaho, plaintiffs presented testimony from physicians, public health officials, and a historian to argue that the state’s abortion bans create confusion for providers and harmful delays in patient care.
- Dr. Julie Lyons, a rural Idaho physician, described the “chilling effects” of the laws and called for clearer guidelines to prioritize women's health.
- Historian Shannon Withycomb highlighted historical precedent for prioritizing maternal health.
- Meanwhile, public health officials revealed that most maternal deaths in Idaho are preventable and noted the state's inability to track abortion care sought by Idaho residents out of state.
(The following is a transcription of the full broadcast story.)
On day four of the trial in Adkins v. Idaho, the plaintiffs, seeking to change the state's abortion laws, focused on the central claims of the case, steering away from arguments about Idaho’s ongoing physician shortage. Testimony highlighted the impact of the state’s abortion bans on medical care, emphasizing confusion among providers and delays in patient treatment.
Dr. Julie Lyons, Chief of Staff at St. Luke’s in the Wood River Valley, testified about her experiences practicing in rural Idaho. She described what she called “the chilling effects” of the laws, which she said lead to harmful delays for patients as physicians grapple with legal uncertainties.
“We need to clarify the laws and really put the health of a woman first. We cannot wait until it's too late,” said Dr. Julie Lyons, Chief of Staff at St. Luke’s Wood River Valley.
The plaintiffs also called historian Professor Shannon Withycomb to the stand, who traced the historical regulation of abortion in the U.S. She distinguished between therapeutic and criminal abortions in the 1800s, noting that physicians once had full discretion to prioritize their patients’ health, with the decision left entirely up to them.
“What I saw was a separation of personal moral feelings about abortion and medical practice or professional practice, where many physicians would discuss their moral position and then describe what they actually did in practice,” said Professor Shannon Withycomb, a historian from the University of New Mexico.
Withycomb cited historical texts that justified prioritizing a woman’s health over a fetus, particularly when the mother’s life or other children were at risk. During cross-examination, the state sought to highlight the distinction between criminal and health-related abortions, emphasizing that abortions performed when the mother’s life was not immediately in danger could be considered illegal, as noted in some of Withycomb’s sources.
The plaintiffs’ final witnesses included Jennifer Liposchak and Elke Shaw-Tulloch, both of whom have worked with the Idaho Division of Public Health. Liposchak testified that a majority of Idaho’s reported maternal deaths were preventable, while Shaw-Tulloch stated that the state is unable to track how many Idaho residents receive abortion care out of state.
