In November 2022, Jillaine St. Michel was 20 weeks pregnant with her second child when an ultrasound revealed that her baby had serious health issues. The diagnosis indicated that the baby was unlikely to survive the pregnancy. Devastated, St. Michel and her husband decided that abortion was the most compassionate option. But living in Idaho, a state with one of the strictest abortion laws in the U.S., made their decision much harder.
Unable to find an abortion provider within Idaho, the couple contacted clinics outside the state. After a long search, they secured an appointment in Seattle, Washington, thanks to a last-minute cancellation.
“I couldn’t grieve properly because we had to focus on the logistics—finding a hotel, arranging transportation, paying for the procedure,” St. Michel, now 38, recalls. “In the midst of one of the hardest situations imaginable, we had to deal with the practicalities. It was heartbreaking.”
St. Michel’s painful experience is now central to a legal challenge against Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. She is one of seven plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in September 2023 by the Center for Reproductive Rights. The case, set for trial on November 12, argues that Idaho’s abortion law is too vague and that women facing serious pregnancy complications should be allowed to access abortion care more easily.
Idaho’s abortion law permits very limited exceptions, such as cases where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest (if reported to law enforcement) or if the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman. The lawsuit seeks to clarify and expand these exceptions, particularly when doctors can intervene to save the health of the pregnant person.
Legal Challenge Comes After Mixed Election Results
The trial comes at a critical time for abortion rights advocates. In the 2024 election, several states passed measures protecting abortion access, but similar efforts failed in others. Meanwhile, the re-election of former President Donald Trump has bolstered conservative arguments following the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
“The women involved in this case have endured unimaginable suffering due to these abortion bans,” said Gail Deady, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “State officials need to be held accountable for the harm caused by these laws.”
James Craig, the attorney representing Idaho, declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit but has previously argued that the state’s law is clear. He maintains that physicians can legally perform abortions if they believe it’s necessary to protect a woman’s life.
Personal Stories of Denied Care
Jennifer Adkins, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, shares her experience with Idaho’s restrictive abortion laws. In early 2023, she learned she was pregnant with her second child. However, an ultrasound revealed that her baby likely had Turner syndrome and other severe conditions. Doctors told Adkins the baby would not survive, and continuing the pregnancy could threaten her own health.
Adkins was told that, despite the grave diagnosis, Idaho’s laws would not allow her to have an abortion.
“We were told that our baby wasn’t going to survive,” Adkins explained. “And the longer I stayed pregnant, the more dangerous it would be for me. Not being able to access abortion care was terrifying.”
Determined to seek care, Adkins and her husband began calling abortion clinics in other states. They eventually received financial assistance and traveled to Portland, Oregon, for the procedure. Adkins says she felt lucky to have had the resources to access the care she needed but joined the lawsuit to help others who may not have the same privilege.
“I knew time was running out,” she said. “The longer I stayed pregnant, the harder it would be to get an abortion. I didn’t want other women to go through the same experience.”
Broader Impact and Ongoing Legal Battle
The lawsuit in Idaho is part of a broader push to challenge abortion restrictions in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Biden Administration has previously sued Idaho over its abortion ban, and in a partial victory, the Supreme Court ruled that federally funded hospitals in the state must provide emergency abortions when necessary to protect a patient’s health.
However, the ruling did not cover all situations, and abortion rights advocates argue that the current laws are still too unclear. Deady points out that some severe conditions, such as fatal fetal diagnoses or threats to a person’s fertility, are not adequately addressed under the current legal framework.
“These vague laws create chaos,” she said. “Doctors are left uncertain about when they can provide necessary care without facing legal consequences.”
Since the Dobbs ruling, similar lawsuits have been filed in other states like Tennessee and Oklahoma, where abortion bans are also severely restricting medical care.
Personal Impact of the Ban
Adkins gave birth to a healthy baby boy four months ago, but the anxiety from her previous experience lingers. “It was a relief to have a healthy pregnancy, but the fear of what could happen again never fully went away,” she said.
Meanwhile, St. Michel and her family moved to Minnesota in July, partly because of their experience with Idaho’s abortion law. “I couldn’t imagine raising a daughter in a place where women don’t have the right to make decisions about their own bodies,” she said. “It just didn’t feel safe to stay.”
St. Michel’s experience has led her to speak out, hoping her involvement in the lawsuit will help ensure that women in Idaho and other states don’t face the same obstacles in the future.
“Pregnancy should never be a time when you have to wonder if you’ll be able to access the care you need,” she said. “No one should have to make those kinds of decisions while dealing with such a difficult situation.”
A Fight for Clearer Laws
The trial will have significant implications for the future of abortion rights in Idaho. The plaintiffs in the case hope to gain clarity on when abortion care can be provided under the state’s law. For many women like Adkins and St. Michel, the outcome of this case could mean the difference between life-threatening uncertainty and the ability to make critical decisions about their health and well-being.
Related Topics:
