Idaho’s state Senate voted Thursday to enact a six-week abortion ban modeled after the Texas law that has eliminated access to the procedure before many people know they are pregnant. The vote puts Idaho on the path to becoming the second state with a six-week ban in place.
The bill, known as Senate Bill 1309, will next go to Idaho’s House of Representatives, where abortion rights organizations expect it to pass. A spokesperson for Republican Gov. Brad Little declined to comment on whether he would sign the bill, saying the office does not comment on pending legislation, but recently reiterated to the Idaho Spokesman Review his opposition toward abortion in general. The bill would take effect 30 days after being signed.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state’s three abortion clinics, has said it will not offer abortions past six weeks if the bill passes.
“This will absolutely lead to an almost complete elimination of abortion access in Idaho,” said Lisa Humes-Schulz, vice president of policy and regulatory affairs for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates Northwest, the organization’s regional advocacy arm.
At six weeks of pregnancy, many people do not realize they have conceived. About two-thirds of abortions in Idaho occur after six weeks of pregnancy, per 2019 data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Texas’ six-week abortion ban is unlike previous abortion restrictions: It deputizes private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against anyone they suspect performed or helped someone obtain an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. It has resulted in Texas abortion providers no longer offering the service to anyone who is past six weeks.
The Supreme Court has declined to block Texas’ law, which appears to violate Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that guarantees the right to an abortion up until a fetus can independently live outside the womb, something that typically occurs around 23 to 25 weeks of pregnancy. A conservative majority of justices has said abortion providers do not have the right to sue the state officials — such as court clerks — who process civil lawsuits, which makes it harder for them to challenge the law.
The court’s decisions were directly cited by the bill’s supporters as reason to pass a similar law in Idaho.
“The Supreme Court has had several opportunities to block enforcement of similar laws in Texas, which they have not done three different times,” said the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Patti Ann Lodge, from the Senate floor.
In Texas, anyone can sue for damages. Idaho’s bill allows only the individual or family to sue — meaning the person who received an abortion, their parents, their other children, their siblings or in-laws and whoever helped conceive the fetus. Under SB 1309, only the doctor who provided the abortion can be sued. Texas’ law held liable anyone who “aided or abetted” the provision of an abortion: someone who helped pay for the procedure or who gave a friend a ride to the clinic, for instance.
Those changes appear to be an effort to escape some of the criticism levied by Democrats, independents and even some Republicans against the Texas’ law.
“This is the first time we have seen this language for a six-week ban, and it looks like a response to the criticism that [in Texas] anyone can sue,” said Elizabeth Nash, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute, a national reproductive health policy organization.
In a letter to a state lawmaker, Idaho’s chief deputy attorney general has suggested that the proposed law is unconstitutional and would be vulnerable to legal challenges. If enacted, the bill is likely to be challenged in court. But the fact that Texas’ law has avoided being struck down — combined with the quick timeline for Idaho’s bill to take effect — means there is a strong likelihood that the six-week ban would take effect after being passed and signed, Nash said.
Even with a narrower roster of potential plaintiffs, the threat of a lawsuit remains powerful. A successful plaintiff would receive damages of at least $20,000 — double the minimum penalty established in the Texas law.
The bill has exceptions for people who become pregnant through rape or incest, but the process is likely to deter many. To qualify for this exception, the pregnant person needs to have previously reported the rape or incest to law enforcement and show a police report to the doctor providing an abortion.
“The vast majority of people don’t even report their rape or incest to the police,” Humes-Schulz said. “While it is an exception on paper, in reality people really aren’t going to be able to access it.”
Texas offers a preview of the potential impact. In September, the Texas law resulted in abortions plummetting by 60 percent. Researchers expect more recent data will show that trend continued.
Clinics in neighboring states have seen their patient volumes surge as more Texans travel out-of-state. If Idaho sees a similar result, patients would probably have to travel to Washington, Oregon, Wyoming or Montana for care, going an average of 250 miles each way for an abortion, Nash said.
In Idaho, insurance generally does not cover abortion, which costs hundreds of dollars at a minimum. Patients must make two visits to a clinic, with a 24-hour waiting period in between, before the procedure.
Because the first sign of pregnancy is often a missed menstrual period, the earliest someone would realize they have conceived is generally at four weeks. Scrounging up the money, child care and time off work to travel for an abortion can take two to three weeks, Humes-Schulz said.
“By the time you get to six weeks into pregnancy, chances are it is very difficult to have gotten an abortion,” she said. “It’s not when you find out you become pregnant, but how long it takes you to get an abortion when you find out in idaho. There’s so few providers, a waiting period, you have to travel and raise money. That’s a big task.”
Per the bill, doctors who perform an abortion after six weeks could face criminal charges, including jail time for two to five years and loss of their medical licenses. But those provisions would not take effect until at least one federal appeals court rules in favor of a six-week abortion ban, either in relation to this legislation or another state law. So far, no court has upheld such a law.
Idaho is not the only state weighing a Texas-inspired abortion ban. An Oklahoma Senate committee also voted in favor of such a bill, though a full Senate vote is not yet scheduled. If Idaho passes its bill, it could inspire others to prioritize that type of legislation, Nash said.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is currently weighing a case that examines the constitutionality of a 15-week abortion ban passed in Mississippi. A decision is expected in June or July, and many observers expect the court will overturn Roe v. Wade either partially or entirely.
If that case is overturned, Idaho has passed a so-called “trigger ban,” which could, if it takes effect, outlaw all abortions.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment. We are presently looking for 464 new monthly donors in the next 8 days.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy