Four women delivered emotional testimony on Tuesday as a part of their lawsuit challenging The State of Idaho's strict abortion ban. Their accounts included heart-wrenching tales of pregnancy complications and fetal anomalies that forced them to seek medical care outside the state. Trial to challenge the State of Idaho's near total abortion ban began on Tuesday. Four women recounted harrowing tales of seeking medical care outside of the state due to Idaho's "trigger law" that bans all abortions except to prevent a mother's death. (The following is a transcription of the full broadcast story.)"And what option did you ultimately decide to take?""I ultimately decided to abort," said Plaintiff, Rebecca Vincent Brown. In a day marked by emotional testimony, four women described their own experiences that led them to seek abortion care outside of the state due to Idaho's strict abortion bans. The plaintiffs suing the state are asking for a change to Idaho's abortion laws in order to allow for additional exceptions in instances where the fetus isn't going to survive or when a continued pregnancy would pose a health risk to the pregnant patient. All four women, Jennifer Adkins, Kayla Smith, Rebecca Vincen-Brown, and Jillaine St.Michel took to the stand Tuesday and said they were eager to grow their families and that they were excited to learn they were pregnant, but all faced severe complications and fetal anomalies that led them to seek medical care in Oregon and Washington."There was no viable baby that was going to come out of this pregnancy," said Vincen-Brown, who explained later that she ultimately suffered a miscarriage in her hotel bathroom. This kind of trauma, the plaintiff's attorneys argued, underscores the need to find better exceptions in Idaho's abortion laws. Plaintiff, Jennifer Adkins testified that she had to drive six hours to Portland after being denied an abortion in Idaho, despite her fetus having a fatal condition. She said that driving out of state, with the risk of hemorrhage or infection, added to the stress of her already dangerous pregnancy. Those same fears were shared by all four women. "We were given all of those diagnoses, and I knew that remaining pregnant was inherently more risky than not being pregnant," said Jillain St. Michel. Each woman emphasized that they would prefer receiving care in their home state. "Two days before us receiving the diagnoses, was when the trigger law went into effect here," said Kayla Smith. Despite these challenges, each one of the women who testified has carried a pregnancy to term since their abortions and has welcomed a healthy baby to their families.Doctor Emily Corrigan, an OBGYN at St. Alphonsus also took the stand on Tuesday and warned that Idaho's restrictive abortion laws could hinder doctors' abilities to protect their patients' health, adding that timely abortion care often lowers risks compared to carrying certain high-risk pregnancies to term. The State of Idaho's legal team contended that the plaintiffs' health issues did not constitute emergency conditions as defined by the state's laws. Making a distinction between emergency and injury, they continued that Idaho's laws protect all unborn children's right to life, asserting that all successful abortions result in the death of an unborn child.