A federal judge in Idaho partially blocked the state’s strict abortion ban on Wednesday, providing a limited but significant victory for the Biden administration, which has tried to use its limited powers to defended reproductive rights since the Supreme Court overthrew Roe v. Wade in June. .
This month, the Ministry of Justice sue Idahoone of the country’s most conservative states, arguing that the law would prevent emergency room doctors from performing the abortions necessary to stabilize the health of women facing medical emergencies. medical.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the Federal District Court in Idaho wrote that doctors in the state cannot be punished for acting to protect the health of mothers at risk, in a preliminary order. issued one day before the ban was issued.
But he stressed the narrow scope of the decision, leaving most other provisions of the bill intact, would constitute a near-total ban on in-state proceedings allowed under the Judgment of the Organization. Women’s Health Dobbs sued Jackson by the Supreme Court in June.
“It is not about the constitutional right that has been omitted to have an abortion,” he wrote. “The court was called upon to address a much more modest issue — whether Idaho’s criminal abortion statute conflicts with a small but important corner of federal law. It’s correct. “
Read more about abortion issues in the US
Judge Winmill, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1995, said some provisions of Idaho law require healthcare workers to do “the opposite” of what their training dictates: Effectively identify problems and treat them promptly to stabilize patients before they develop a life-threatening emergency. “
The judge said the moratorium on enforcement would continue until a lawsuit challenging the injunction is resolved.
The Justice Department argued that the measure violated a federal law known as Emergency Medical Treatment and the Labor Act, requires medical professionals at hospitals that accept Medicare funding to take any steps necessary to ensure the physical health of patients, including pregnant women.
“Today’s decision by the District Court for the County of Idaho ensures that women in the state of Idaho can receive the emergency medical treatment they are entitled to under federal law,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. know in a statement. “This includes abortion when it’s necessary treatment.”
He added that the department will “use every tool at its disposal to protect reproductive rights protected by federal law.”
The administration’s victory in court comes less than 24 hours after its defeat in a closely related conflict between the blue White House and a red state in a much more populous state. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of the state’s lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, which directs hospitals that receive federal aid to follow federal law. when a mother’s health is at stake even if it conflicts with the new state. abortion is prohibited.
But the Idaho case also illustrates the real complexity of the situation – particularly the difficulties in drafting state abortion laws that both respond to the demands of anti-abortion politicians and defend women’s rights. doctors from being severely punished for doing their jobs.
Doctors in Idaho who perform abortions face criminal penalties under the law, although they can appeal by proving their actions were necessary to prevent a woman’s death.
State officials did not immediately respond to news of the ruling, but are expected to appeal the decision. Idaho Governor Brad Little, a Republican, described the Justice Department lawsuit as “federal interference.” The Supreme Court “returns the abortion issue to the states for correction – end of story,” he said this month.
Most abortions now banned in at least 10 states since the Supreme Court issued its ruling, and restrictions in several other states, including Idaho, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas, will go into effect this month, excluding court challenges. The Justice Department’s ability to influence policies in Republican states passed so-called trigger laws, which banned abortion almost immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, are limited and these actions are likely to affect only a small percentage of pregnant women.
Idaho’s activation law does not allow abortion in cases involving rape or when a woman’s life is in danger. But there are no rules for women who are likely to experience serious health problems, including organ damage, in continuing their pregnancy.
The Supreme Court’s decision, and the race by conservative states to impose a ban on abortion, has provoked a strong political backlash. At the beginning of August, voters in Kansas resounding decision to preserve Judgment 2019 by the state Supreme Court interpreting the state’s Constitution as protecting the right to abortion. The ballot initiative is the first referendum on abortion rights since the decision by the US Supreme Court.
Charlie Savage contribution report.
