Reproductive justice advocates allege that police in Idaho have made the first “abortion trafficking” arrest after an Idaho teenager and his mother were charged with “kidnapping” for bringing the teen’s girlfriend out of state for an abortion.
The 15-year-old who had an out-of-state abortion, identified in court records as K.B., was living in Idaho with her boyfriend and his mother when she became pregnant. In May, the same month Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law went into effect, her boyfriend and his mother brought her to Oregon to obtain abortion medication.
K.B.’s mother reported to the police that K.B. was taken out of state to obtain an abortion without parental consent, sparking a police investigation. Police charged K.B.’s boyfriend and his mother with multiple charges, including felony kidnapping. While the two were not specifically charged under the abortion trafficking law, reproductive justice activist and writer Jessica Valenti noted that “prosecutors used the exact language of the trafficking law in the kidnapping charge.”
The abortion trafficking law is currently being challenged in court, which may be why the prosecutors in this case decided to charge the two with felony kidnapping, instead of under the abortion trafficking law. Advocates believe that these charges are being used as a “test case” for the controversial statute.
“It’s actually a pretty slick move, allowing prosecutors to charge the two with abortion trafficking without citing the statute specifically in case it gets blocked,” Valenti said.
Idaho’s abortion trafficking law criminalizes the act of transportation of an Idaho-based minor to another state for an abortion without their parents’ or guardians’ consent. Doing so is a felony offense punishable by two to five years in prison.
“Giving them [minors] money, giving them a ride, helping them organize the visit to a doctor out of state — all of the activity that’s required to help a young person leave the state — any of that would be punishable,” said Elisabeth Smith, director of U.S. state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Idaho’s travel ban was based on a model bill drafted by anti-abortion group the National Right to Life, and is designed to undermine the implied constitutional protections for interstate travel.
“This is one of the next frontiers of abortion litigation,” David S. Cohen, a constitutional law professor at Drexel University, told KFF Health News. “They’re clearly pushing this kind of law with other states.”
In response to the potential criminalization of people from states with abortion bans seeking abortions out of state, states like Washington, Colorado, and Oregon have enacted shield laws, barring law enforcement from cooperating with other states’ abortion investigations. However, police in this case were able to circumvent Oregon’s shield law by using geo-location data to place the teenager at an Oregon abortion clinic.
“Ever since the reversal of Roe we have been saying that surveillance built on corporate data harvesting is how draconian anti-abortion laws will be enforced,” digital activism nonprofit Fight for the Future said on social media. “Since more laws like the one in Idaho are being passed it’s important to lift up this story.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.