Garnet Henderson on Idaho, Abortion, and Christian Nationalism

Interview with Garnet Henderson on the rise of a far-Right and Christian Nationalist currents in Idaho.

Garnet Henderson traveled through scenic, mostly rural, Idaho last year starting in Coeur d’Alene and making her way south. The last leg of the trip brought her through beautiful, chilly, fall in Boise before ending in Twin Falls. Boise now is a lot like it was at that time, but it was a little bit different:  Instead of bracing for a right wing primary in Idaho, this year we’re bracing for a right wing general election.  Unfortunately for Garnet, the trip was less a study of Idaho’s beautiful scenery and more a focus on Christian Nationalism, particularly the strain in the Idaho Legislature that is working to inhibit abortion access for Idahoans.

The resultant article series, published at Rewire, is a soaring and sweeping narrative, along with warnings and words of hope, regarding the situation as Garnet experienced it in 2023.  Since then, the primary has passed, some legislation has fallen while others have advanced, and we prepare ourselves for the next Christian Nationalism hurdle: the general election next week.  Right now, at the one year anniversary of the trip and series, days before the end of the election cycle, it seemed like a good moment to check in with Garnet for some updates. We reached out and spoke to her regarding Idaho, abortion access, Christian Nationalism, and the election.

What follows is a lightly-edited written interview between me (an individual contributing to BASH) and Garnet Henderson, Senior Multiplatform Reporter at Rewire News Group.

BASH:  After a year of settling your thoughts on the trip, can you briefly give an updated description of the experience coming to Idaho? Was there a difference in expectation versus outcome that you can share?

Garnet Henderson (GH):  I didn’t really have specific expectations coming into my trip—my approach as a reporter is to talk to as many people and gather absolutely as much information as possible, so coming in I was really focused on trying to make contact with as many potential interviewees as I could, and the doing the required tetris to fit all those conversations in. The trip was both short and long in certain respects. Pretty long for a reporting trip in today’s media environment where budgets are unfortunately tiny (I couldn’t have done it at all without a grant from the International Women’s Media Foundation), but short in that I was never in any one place for more than a few days. Mostly I came away with immense gratitude that so many people were willing to make time to talk with me and connect me to others they thought I should speak with. And I can’t lie, a 10-day road trip through Idaho is a pretty good deal, it’s a beautiful place.

BASH:  Some of the things you were looking forward to from the Idaho legislature have come and passed, some have been turned back, as have some of the legislators. I recently saw the update to your article after the primaries, it wasn’t all bad news. Can you tell us about those positive and or negative updates and please feel free to include as much or as little national update repro context as well.

GH:  I think the biggest update is that so many Republican incumbents—15, a nearly unheard-of number, I’d say—lost their primaries. That includes Scott Herndon, one state legislator I focused on quite a bit in my second of three stories. The North Idaho Republicans also seem to be turning the tide against KCRCC and regaining precinct committee seats, which is also impressive. On the repro front, abortion is still banned in Idaho, but the “abortion trafficking” ban is blocked, though the state is seeking to revive it at the Ninth Circuit. There were a number of anti-abortion bills that failed in the state legislature this year, perhaps because Republicans realize they’ve overplayed their hand, and a few affirmative bills that succeeded and were signed into law, including a requirement that insurers allow people to get six months of birth control up front and a partial reinstatement of the maternal mortality review committee. That said, the state of Idaho is still arguing it should be allowed to enforce its abortion ban—which has very narrow lifesaving exceptions—in violation of federal law, which requires a broader health exception. The Supreme Court punted on that decision last term but that case will be back on their docket as soon as this year (womp womp).

BASH:  The repro access conversation seems to have been tucked into the back seat of this election cycle. It’s not put on hold by any means, but it’s also as uncertain as the election itself, where there are clear battle lines on the matter drawn. Have you been experiencing people navigating access during this time of flux? How do people feel about future access hanging in the balance in this way?

GH:  Abortion is definitely part of the conversation, as it always is during a presidential election year, and abortion also is literally, directly, on the ballot in 10 states. But I do agree that other repro issues like contraception have hardly been talked about at all in this cycle, with one exception being IVF. In my experience, when abortion or other repro issues are the topic of political conversation, it mostly creates confusion and fear. People aren’t sure what’s legal, so they don’t know what to do, and sometimes they even delay seeking care that they need. It’s scary! There’s also a national funding crisis for abortion access at the moment, because the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood—which jointly operate the single largest financial assistance program for abortion—dramatically cut the amount of assistance they’re offering over the summer. That has created further confusion and new barriers to access, and people often don’t understand what’s happening or why.

BASH:  As I read through this, there were so many voices from so many angles. Knowing a bit about the politics in the scene and that you only had 10 days to navigate it (even fewer in Boise): can you talk a bit about what it was like crunching that much Idaho into something worth reading? Arguably, something quite important for reading? The through line and the messaging comes through quite clearly, can you contrast that to the experience itself?

GH:  Thank you, I really appreciate that. The downside of the “talk to as many people as possible” approach is that there is then a huge amount of material to sort through on the other side, and painful decisions to make about what to keep and cut. Going in, I knew I wanted to convey what it’s like to live under multiple abortion bans. I also knew that there’s been lots of ink spilled about the American Redoubt stuff and that lots of people vaguely remember that the Aryan Nations had a big compound in North Idaho. What I wanted to make sure to capture is that there’s this longer and broader history of Christian nationalists and white supremacists being attracted to Idaho, but also a history of locals organizing against those people, and that there’s a lot of organizing happening against them today. So I think it was pretty easy to settle on the first story being about the climate of fear around pregnancy, because I encountered that at every turn. And then it was in sorting through all my many notes that the arc of the second two pieces took shape, number two being focused on the history and present of that political migration, and number three being a look at all the anti-fascist organizing that’s happening now. But during the trip, I wasn’t thinking about what would go in which story at all. Just asking as many questions as I could think of.

BASH:  A thing that you touched on that was gaining steam was the Open Primaries Initiative, right? It’s safe to say it has steam now and we’re about to see if it makes it into the station. You’ve identified, correctly I think, that this is an important issue on the ballot. Can you touch on it a little bit here? That’s pretty open but I’m looking for why it’s important, what your feelings are about the election where it’s on the ballot, or anything else.

GH:  Well, there is a lot of very understandable voter apathy when it comes to the presidential election. So I think it’s a saving grace of sorts that in so many states, there are important ballot questions like the Open Primaries Initiative that people can vote on directly. And this certainly seems like a way Idahoans can take direct action to pull their state back from the brink (though I saw this week that Brian Lenney has already threatened an immediate repeal effort if it succeeds). The excitement about it was palpable when I was in Idaho an entire year ago, so I hope that energy is carrying you all through a pretty bleak season.

BASH:  Can you tell us about any recent or upcoming work of yours? Feel free to talk as much or as little about the election as you care to, it seems like a holding your breath moment until after that as far as making repro roadmaps?

GH:  I’ve done a lot of reporting on the Comstock Act, which I think is important for people to understand and be aware of because it has emerged as priority number one for the anti-abortion movement. Tl;dr they want to use an 1873 anti-vice law written by a man who was deeply ashamed of his own obsessive masturbation to ban abortion, contraception, and whatever else they might deem “obscene.” There’s also my reporting on the repro funding crisis, and another story I did about some of the out-there ideas to help people access abortion post-Dobbs, looking at which ones succeeded and which failed.

BASH:  Any links or resources that you think should be included? Any recommended voices or reading?

GH:  I Need an A – always good to know how to help people find the abortion info and support they need.

This ends our interview with Garnet Henderson.  I would like to thank Garnet for taking the time to give thoughtful and insightful responses.  Be sure to check out resources and coverage linked throughout as well as follow her on social if you are interested in keeping up with her work and repro news.

Photo by Zoshua Colah on Unsplash