U.S. judge blocks Idaho abortion ban in emergencies; Texas restrictions 
		allowed
		
		 
		Send a link to a friend  
 
		
		
		 [August 25, 2022] 
		By Nate Raymond 
		 
		(Reuters) -A federal judge on Wednesday 
		blocked Idaho from enforcing a ban on abortions when pregnant women 
		require emergency care, a day after a judge in Texas ruled against 
		President Joe Biden's administration on the same issue. 
		 
		The conflicting rulings came in two of the first lawsuits over Biden's 
		attempts to keep abortion legal after the conservative majority U.S. 
		Supreme Court in June overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that 
		legalized the procedure nationwide. 
		 
		Legal experts said the dueling rulings in Idaho and Texas could, if 
		upheld on appeal, force the Supreme Court to wade back into the debate. 
		 
		About half of U.S. states have or are expected to seek to ban or curtail 
		abortions following Roe's reversal. Those states include Idaho and 
		Texas, which like 11 others adopted "trigger" laws banning abortion upon 
		such a decision. 
		 
		Abortion is already illegal in Texas under a separate, nearly 
		century-old abortion ban that took effect after the U.S. Supreme Court's 
		decision. Idaho's trigger ban takes effect on Thursday, the same day as 
		in Texas and Tennessee. 
		 
		In Idaho, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with the U.S. 
		Department of Justice that the abortion ban taking effect Thursday 
		conflicts with a federal law that ensures patients can receive emergency 
		"stabilizing care."  
		  
		
		
		  
		
		 
		Winmill, who was appointed to the court by former Democratic President 
		Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho from 
		enforcing its ban to the extent it conflicts with federal law, citing 
		the threat to patients. 
		 
		"One cannot imagine the anxiety and fear (a pregnant woman) will 
		experience if her doctors feel hobbled by an Idaho law that does not 
		allow them to provide the medical care necessary to preserve her health 
		and life," Winmill wrote.  
		 
		The Justice Department has said the federal Emergency Medical Treatment 
		and Labor Act requires abortion care in emergency situations. 
		 
		"Today's decision by the District Court for the District of Idaho 
		ensures that women in the State of Idaho can obtain the emergency 
		medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law," U.S. 
		Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a written statement.  
		 
		"The Department of Justice will continue to use every tool at its 
		disposal to defend the reproductive rights protected by federal law," 
		Garland said. The DOJ has said that it disagrees with the Texas ruling 
		and is considering next legal steps. 
		 
		[to top of second column] 
			 | 
            
             
            
			  
            Abortion rights protesters participate 
			in nationwide demonstrations following the leaked Supreme Court 
			opinion suggesting the possibility of overturning the Roe v. Wade 
			abortion rights decision, in Houston, Texas, U.S., May 14, 2022. 
			REUTERS/Callaghan O'Hare 
            
			
			
			  U.S. District Judge James Wesley 
			Hendrix ruled in the Texas case that the U.S. Department of Health 
			and Human Services went too far by issuing guidance that the same 
			federal law guaranteed abortion care. 
			 
			Hendrix agreed with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, 
			that the guidance issued in July "discards the requirement to 
			consider the welfare of unborn children when determining how to 
			stabilize a pregnant woman." 
			 
			Hendrix, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, said the 
			federal statute was silent as to what a doctor should do when there 
			is a conflict between the health of the mother and the unborn child 
			and that the Texas law "fills that void." 
			 
			Hendrix issued an injunction barring enforcement of the HHS guidance 
			in Texas and against two groups of anti-abortion doctors who also 
			challenged it, saying the Idaho case showed a risk the Biden 
			administration might try to enforce it. 
			 
			Hendrix declined to issue a nationwide injunction as Paxton wanted. 
			 
			Appeals are expected in both cases and would be heard by separate 
			appeals courts, one based in San Francisco with a reputation for 
			leaning liberal and another in New Orleans known for conservative 
			rulings. 
			 
			Greer Donley, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh 
			Law School and expert on abortion law, said that if the conflicting 
			rulings were upheld the U.S. Supreme Court may feel pressured to 
			intervene. 
			 
			"Without a federal right abortion, this is the type of legal chaos 
			that most people were predicting would be happening," she said. 
			 
			(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Additional reporting by Dan 
			Whitcomb in Los Angeles; Editing by Grant McCool and Christopher 
			Cushing) 
			
			[© 2022 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.]  This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. 
			
			   |