News
Idaho Court Expands Abortion Ban Medical Exceptions
A state judge in Idaho appeared to slightly broaden access to abortion there by ruling on Friday that an exception to the state’s ban does not require the woman to be facing impending death.
Idaho’s ban, one of the strictest in the nation, prohibits abortion in almost all cases. One exception is when it is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. Judge Jason D. Scott ruled that abortions are allowed if a doctor deems that the woman is likely to die sooner without an abortion than she would otherwise — even if her death “is neither imminent nor assured.”
The ruling, which kept the law in place, handed a partial victory to reproductive rights advocates and Idaho doctors who said the ban had forced them to wait for patients to reach the brink of death before they could act, or rush them out of state to get care elsewhere.
“I feel very reassured” by the ruling, said Dr. Emily Corrigan, an Idaho obstetrician-gynecologist who is one of the plaintiffs. “I think there’s many, many more case scenarios where the patient’s condition would squarely fall within that exception.”
Idaho’s attorney general, Raúl Labrador, who was one of the defendants, said in a statement that Idaho law has never required doctors to wait until a woman’s death is certain or imminent before providing an abortion. “While we still disagree with portions of the ruling, it confirms what my office has argued in courts from Boise to Washington, D.C. — that Idaho’s abortion laws are constitutional and protect both unborn children and their mothers,” he said.
It was unclear on Saturday whether his office would appeal the decision.
The Idaho judgment arose from a lawsuit filed in September 2023 by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of four women who said they had to leave the state to receive abortions after learning that they faced serious health risks or that their fetuses would not survive. The suit was joined by Dr. Corrigan, another physician and a family physicians’ organization.
The plaintiffs argued that state law should permit abortions in cases where continuing a pregnancy is unsafe or where the fetus has been diagnosed with a fatal condition.
Judge Scott of Idaho’s Fourth District did not go as far as the plaintiffs wanted, rejecting the claim that abortions should be allowed when a fetus won’t survive.
But he found that doctors may provide an abortion when, in their medical judgment, a patient “faces a non-negligible risk of dying sooner without an abortion,” even if death is not certain or immediate. The exception does not apply when that risk arises from potential self-harm, the judge ruled.
The lead plaintiff, Jennifer Adkins, 33, was 12 weeks pregnant with her second child when doctors told her the fetus had a rare genetic condition that carried a high mortality rate and that her pregnancy was probably nonviable. Doctors said that if Ms. Adkins did not miscarry, she would be at high risk of developing a life-threatening condition called mirror syndrome. Ms. Adkins, who lives in Caldwell, Idaho, near Boise, ultimately traveled 400 miles to Portland, Ore., for an abortion.
She said in an interview that she believed the judge’s ruling would have allowed her to get care in her home state.
“Having to go through something like that and lose a baby that you really, really wanted, in a place full of strangers, not surrounded by family and friends and providers that you know and trust, it was incredibly challenging, and it was incredibly sad,” she said.
In a separate case filed soon after the Supreme Court overturned the national right to abortion in 2022, the Biden administration sued Idaho over its abortion ban, arguing that the ban’s strict limits violated a federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care, including abortions, to any patient.
Idaho argued that its ban complied with the federal law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA. Last year, the Supreme Court handed a temporary victory to the Biden administration, returning the case to a lower court that had put the ban on hold. But under the Trump administration, the Justice Department dropped the lawsuit, clearing the way for the ban to take effect in full.
In a similar lawsuit filed by St. Luke’s Health System, the largest hospital system in the state, a federal judge issued an order last month shielding its doctors from prosecution if they provided abortions in emergencies.
Dr. Corrigan said Friday’s ruling offers clarity to physicians statewide.
While the ruling applies only in Idaho, abortion-rights advocates said it illustrated the need for clearer and broader exemptions in other states that strictly ban abortion.
“The problem, whether you’re in Idaho or Texas or any of the other states that have a serious abortion ban, physicians are very conservative and very litigation-averse, very risk-averse,” said Laura Hermer, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law whose research focuses on reproductive rights. “The states are trying assiduously to put the onus of this burden on health care providers.”
Many abortion opponents agree with Mr. Labrador’s contention that the existing exceptions are clear, and that doctors who claim otherwise are misreading the law.
Eleven other states ban abortion in almost all circumstances. Legal efforts to broaden the exemptions in those states have seen mixed results.
The Texas Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit that sought to expand exceptions for medical emergencies in the state, finding that the law already allowed abortions for women facing life-threatening conditions, “before death or serious physical impairment are imminent.”
In Tennessee, a lawsuit similar to the one in Idaho is pending.
News
Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota
new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota
transcript
transcript
Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”
-
“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”
By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston
December 17, 2025
News
Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn
Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.
Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.
A sloppy edit
At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.
The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”
Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”
The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”
While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.
A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.
Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.
The appeal of BritBox
For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.
That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.
Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”
Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)
It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.
Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.
Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)
“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.
NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.
Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn
Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.
Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.
In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.
Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.
Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.
“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”
An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.
“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”
Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement
Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.
“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”
Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.
News
Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
transcript
transcript
Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.
-
Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.
By Shawn Paik
December 16, 2025
-
Iowa2 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa1 week agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Iowa4 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
-
Maine21 hours agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Technology6 days agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster