A major obstacle appears to be in the way of Idaho’s nearly complete abortion ban only days before it is scheduled to take effect.
Judge Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court stated that there appears to be a clear conflict between that legislation and a federal law governing emergency care prior to the start of Monday’s oral arguments.
The lawsuit was brought earlier this month by the Biden administration, which cited a federal rule requiring hospitals that accept Medicare financing to treat patients with serious medical issues. It makes the case that abortions are among those treatments.
According to Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General Brian Netter, lives, livelihoods, and health are unquestionably on the line. He also noted that the criminal penalties would have a chilling effect on doctors who are unwilling to break the law.
They might be sentenced to two to five years in prison and, for the first offense, have their medical license suspended.
Brian Church, a deputy attorney general for Idaho, acknowledged that the restriction would apply to ectopic pregnancies, which occur when an unviable embryo develops outside the womb and can result in severe or catastrophic bleeding.
However, a doctor executing an unlawful abortion in the real world wouldn’t face criminal penalties, according to Monte Stewart, an attorney for the Idaho legislature.
Stewart claimed that while Idaho is capable of many things, it is not able to produce prosecutors who are foolish enough to charge an ectopic pregnancy.
Finally, Winmill put a hypothetical question to Church and Stewart. What advice would they give if they worked as hospital attorneys and a doctor contacted asking whether they could abort a pregnancy when the lady had a 50% probability of dying?
Church stated that he would merely summarize the written text of the statute. He stated that the doctor would have final say in the matter.
According to Church, if a doctor is actually being prosecuted, they may claim that the abortion was performed in accordance with their good-faith medical judgment.
He added that hospitals are only required by federal law to stabilize patients before releasing them or moving them to another facility.
It’s not necessary for the treatment to be a recovery from an urgent medical problem.
In contrast, Stewart claimed that in the hypothetical situation, he would have no issue encouraging the doctor to conduct the abortion.
There won’t be a prosecution in the real world, he claimed.
Winmill didn’t seem to agree with that claim, claiming that the law’s text is quite simple to read and comprehend.
He claimed that if the legislature had not intended for the law to be enforced, it would not have been passed.
In addition to two other cases involving additional abortion restrictions, Planned Parenthood is fighting the nearly complete abortion ban before the Idaho Supreme Court. A prohibition on abortion in the Texas style was enacted earlier this year, and a six-week abortion ban will be put into effect in 2021.
The other two laws are constructed so that, if all three are passed, the nearly complete prohibition and its stringent restrictions will be the sole enforceable infraction.
In his final rebuttal, Netter argued that due of the way those statutes were written, the federal government believes that an injunction blocking the 2020 law would effectively leave Idaho without any kind of restriction in place.
Winmill stated that he will decide whether to stop the nearly complete abortion ban, which goes into force on Thursday, in writing by Wednesday.
For more regional news, follow James Dawson on Twitter @RadioDawson .
2022 Boise State Public Radio Copyright