AMNA NAWAZ: This week, the Trump administration moved to dismiss a lawsuit against the state of Idaho that sought to allow abortions in the case of medical emergencies.

Idaho is one of 12 states across the country with a near-total abortion ban.

The Biden administration originally sued Idaho, arguing that federal law requires doctors to perform an abortion if a patient's life is at risk.

Joining me now to discuss the impact is Mary Ziegler, a professor at U.C.

Davis School of Law and legal historian on reproductive rights.

Mary, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

MARY ZIEGLER, University of California, Davis, School of Law: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So we should note the Supreme Court did weigh in on this case last year.

It's that ruling that allowed emergency abortions to continue in Idaho, but they kicked the key legal question back to this appeals court.

So, Mary, what does the Trump administration's move to dismiss the case mean for its future?

MARY ZIEGLER: Well, at the moment, the case seems to be dead on arrival.

There's an interesting question about whether some other party will try to intervene to keep the case alive, in other words, whether there will be some other party with standing that can step in where the Trump administration has backed away.

But we don't know yet if that's going to happen.

AMNA NAWAZ: So emergency room doctors had been performing what they deemed to be lifesaving abortions while this was in litigation.

Without the case, where does that leave doctors on the ground and patients in need of this care?

MARY ZIEGLER: It leaves them in a tremendous amount of uncertainty.

Idaho has maintained throughout this litigation that its abortion ban permits what it views as medically necessary abortions.

Physicians have been unclear as to whether that's true and I think also unwilling to risk the kind of penalties that Idaho law authorizes for making the wrong guess.

And we have seen, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, that physicians have been pretty risk-averse.

So we would expect to see more of the same in Idaho.

And that will, of course, have impacts on patients seeking abortion and also patients with wanted pregnancies.

AMNA NAWAZ: There was, it's my understanding, a sort of test period in Idaho in which the ban was in place before the Biden era litigation sort of paused the implementation there.

Did we see anything in the way of impact during that period that tells us what could be ahead for the impact on the ground?

MARY ZIEGLER: Yes, we did.

So there were several instances in which patients had to be airlifted to other hospitals because physicians in Idaho were unwilling to treat them or unsure if they could intervene.

Again, I think Idaho maintained that that was an overreaction by physicians.

But we're going to see more of the same almost inevitably because physicians are unwilling to risk their liberty and livelihoods on guessing whether their conduct will fit within an exception.

And we'd expect to see more of the same as this law goes back into effect.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, more broadly, in terms of the implication here, I mean, what is this signal to you about how this Trump administration views and plans to interpret federal laws that are designed to protect emergency or urgent care when they bump up against state laws like state abortion bans that conflict with that?

MARY ZIEGLER: Yes, I mean, one of the things I think that's telling is that the Trump administration hasn't been particularly vocal about its positions on abortion.

It hasn't been something that President Trump has been foregrounding.

But I think, slowly and without a lot of fanfare, we're starting to see the Trump administration bringing policy into alignment with the preferences of the anti-abortion movement.

And, of course, there are other things we're waiting to see on that front too, most notably access to mifepristone, which is a drug used in more than half of all abortions in the United States.

This week, the Trump administration asked a judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, for more time to review the administration's position on mifepristone in critically important litigation going forward.

So I think this is a sign that there's going to be more to come from the Trump administration in moving policy in a pretty radically or considerably conservative direction when it comes to abortion.

AMNA NAWAZ: Related to mifepristone access, there was Mr. Trump's pick to lead the FDA.

Dr. Marty Makary, who was in his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill today, was asked about access to that abortion pill, and would only say that he has no preconceived plans on mifepristone policy.

So do you foresee access to mifepristone going away under new FDA leadership?

MARY ZIEGLER: It seems pretty likely that access to mifepristone will change.

I don't know if the FDA and the Trump administration will move to entirely eliminate mifepristone access, for example, by using the Comstock Act or just removing mifepristone from the market, or if instead the Trump administration will roll back restrictions that had been in place on mifepristone and eliminate telehealth access to it.

But it seems like that's the bare minimum we're likely to see.

I think it's more likely to be a question of when, rather than if.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mary Ziegler from U.C.

Davis School of Law, always good to speak with you.

Thank you so much for making the time.

Appreciate it.

MARY ZIEGLER: Thanks for having me.