A federal judge in Idaho suggests that the’ll side with the Biden administration and rule that a law banning abortions in the state violates federal law.

Via Reuters:

A U.S. judge on Monday signaled he was open to the U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to block a near-total ban on abortions in Idaho from being enforced in emergencies, saying it could prevent care to pregnant women whose lives are in danger.

The case is President Joe Biden’s administration’s first legal challenge to a state abortion ban since the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned the nationwide constitutional right to the procedure.

At a hearing, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Boise echoed the administration’s concerns that the Idaho law, which takes effect Thursday, could discourage doctors from offering emergency abortions as required by federal law to pregnant women facing the risk of death or serious injury.

The Biden administration’s lawsuit, filed on Aug. 2, argues Idaho’s near-total ban would infringe on the rights women have to emergency medical care at hospitals under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

While the Idaho law allows for abortions to prevent the death of a pregnant woman, Winmill noted it did so only by allowing doctors who are prosecuted under the law to argue at trial that they had a good faith basis to believe that the patient’s life was in danger.

Monte Stewart, a lawyer for the state’s Republican-led legislature, argued prosecutors were unlikely to bring such a case in the “real world.” But Winmill said the fact that prosecution was unlikely was little comfort to doctors.

“It would be the rare situation where a doctor is willing or anxious to push the limits and go right up to the edge of what is allowed under the Idaho abortion statute,” said Winmill, an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

There you have it. This judge is not only a Clinton appointee, but his party affiliation is listed as Democratic.

I think the basis for this argument is ridiculous. If a doctor can’t provide emergency treatment to a pregnant woman because he/she fears prosecution, then maybe they have no business being in an emergency physician. Seriousy, how hard is it to treat a pregnant woman without killing her baby? The instances where the life of the mother is at risk are extremely rare and the conditions for terminating a pregnancy should be quite obvious should this situation arise, so much so that it would never be labeled murder and more likely to never be prosecuted.

This would be a dumb reason to overturn this law protecting millions of unborn babies, but I fully expect Winmill to do it. And as soon as he does it will be appealed and a higher court will hopefully correct the wrong done by Winmill. I would hate to think that this would end up at the Supreme Court given the overturning of Roe v Wade, but you never know with all these activist judges behind the federal bench.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...