Boise trial on an abortion trial punctuated by emotional testimony

Idaho’s ban allows abortions if a doctor determines in “good faith medical judgment” that it will save a mother’s life. “Who will decide that I did not use reasonable judgment?” said Dr. Katharine Wenstrom, director of fetal medicine at a Rhode Island hospital and professor at Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.

“Will there be anyone without medical training?”

She said she would never practice medicine in an abortion-ban state like Idaho because the threat of criminal charges, losing her medical license or lawsuits from family members of a fetus could affect her decision-making.

Those consequences would “end my career and ruin my life,” she told the court. Liz Woodruff, executive director of the Idaho Academy of Family Physicians, which is also a plaintiff in the case, described “serious confusion” among the group’s 800 statewide members about how to interpret the bans. abortion after Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion, was overturned in 2022.

She said the concerns prompted “urgent” pleas to lawmakers to change the laws to add a health exception and make them more closely reflect medical terminology.

Lawmakers have so far refused to make changes to the laws, and state health and legal officials have offered no guidance for doctors navigating pregnancy complications. Asked why her organization sued the state, Woodruff began to cry. “We did everything we could think of to try to address the concerns of our members and we couldn’t do it otherwise,” she said.

IDAHO WITNESSES INCLUDE DOCTOR WHO CLAIMS BIRTH CONTROL IS ABORTION

After days of testimony and cross-examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses, the state called its witnesses to the stand. Dr. Dustan Hughes, an ob/gyn and founder of Lifestages Medical Practice in Nampa, and Rod Story, a family medicine physician from Pullman, Wash., who owns a family medicine practice in Moscow.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs objected to the inclusion of testimony from Hughes and Story, who were only presented as witnesses earlier in the week.

Craig said the state struggled to find doctors to testify because of concerns about “professional repercussions.” Hughes and Story, in their testimony, said they don’t find the laws confusing in their practice — though attorneys for the plaintiffs pointed out that Story doesn’t manage regular gynecological care for her pregnant patients.

Hughes, who has privileges at Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Nampa, said he tries to counsel other doctors when they raise concerns about the legality of providing an abortion. “I was able to provide routine care, so it didn’t affect my ability to treat these ladies at all,” Hughes said.

Hughes said during the examination that the state heard about him through his work with Lifeline Pregnancy Care Center, which provides pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and other pregnancy resources.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs criticized the nonprofit as a “crisis pregnancy center,” which is an anti-abortion unit that tries to persuade pregnant women not to have abortions.

Story also received pushback from plaintiffs’ attorneys, who questioned his general stances on abortion. During cross-examination, Story said he considers any process that interrupts a fertilized egg — including hormonal birth control — to be an abortion. Story said while the current medical abortion exceptions for molar and ectopic pregnancy align with his morals, he opposes Idaho’s exceptions for rape and incest. The state’s final witness was dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas gynecologist and vice president of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a leading anti-abortion think tank. Skop has offered controversial testimony on abortion in other states and was called “the first port of call for anyone looking for a gynecologist to defend abortion restrictions” by the Texas Tribune after being appointed to the state’s maternal mortality review committee in early this year.

Skop, who is not licensed to practice medicine in Idaho, said in testimony that Idaho’s ban is clear and allows doctors to provide necessary care to patients.

Skop said abortion is often not medically necessary and can be physically and psychologically harmful to women. She also described abortion as “feticide” and explained a “dilation and evacuation” abortion procedure, using illustrations described by the plaintiffs’ legal team as “prejudicial and inflammatory.”

“The best word I can come up with is propaganda,” said attorney Leah Godesky. Godesky continued to attack Skop’s credibility during cross-examination and pointed out the flawed research Skop had published on abortion. Godesky asked Skop if he had spoken with any Idaho doctors, pregnant Idaho residents, hospital administrators or county prosecutors before offering his opinion on practicing medicine under Idaho’s abortion bans. Skop said he didn’t.

Nicole Blanchard is on the Idaho Statesman’s investigative and reporting teams. She also covers Idaho Outdoors and frequents trails around Idaho. Nicole grew up in Idaho, graduated from Idaho State University and Northwestern University with a Masters in Journalism.