FILE PHOTO: Abortion rights protesters take part in demonstrations across the country after the leaked Supreme Court opinion suggests the possibility of overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, in Houston, Texas, U.S., May 14, 2022. REUTERS/Callaghan O’Hare
Sign up now for FREE, unlimited access to Reuters.com
Sign up
Aug 24 (Reuters) – A federal judge on Wednesday blocked Idaho from enforcing a ban on abortions when pregnant women need emergency care, a day after a Texas judge ruled against President Joe Biden’s administration on the same subject.
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 legalize the procedure throughout the country.
Legal experts said the dueling rulings in Idaho and Texas could, if upheld on appeal, force the Supreme Court to return to the debate.
Sign up now for FREE, unlimited access to Reuters.com
Sign up
About half of US states have or are expected to try to ban or reduce abortions after Roe’s overturn. Those states include Idaho and Texas, which like 11 others adopted “trigger” laws banning abortion after that 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 activation ban goes into effect Thursday, the same day as Texas and Tennessee.
In Idaho, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice that the abortion ban that takes effect Thursday conflicts with a federal law that ensures patients can receive ” emergency stabilization 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 to the patients
“You can’t imagine the anxiety and fear (a pregnant woman) will experience if her doctors feel hindered by an Idaho law that doesn’t 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 Employment 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 get the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law,” said Attorney General United States, Merrick Garland, in a written statement.
“The Department of Justice will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend reproductive rights protected under federal law,” Garland said. The DOJ has said it disagrees with the Texas ruling and is considering next legal steps.
US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in the Texas case that the US Department of Health and Human Services went too far in issuing guidance that federal law itself guaranteed abortion care.
Hendrix agreed with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, that the guidance issued in July “dismisses the requirement to consider the welfare of unborn children when determining how to stabilize a pregnant woman.”
Hendrix, appointed by former President Donald Trump, said federal statute is silent on what a doctor should do when there is a conflict between the health of the mother and the unborn and that the Texas law “fills that void “.
Hendrix issued an injunction barring enforcement of the HHS guidelines in Texas and against two anti-abortion physician groups that also challenged it, saying the Idaho case showed a risk that the Biden administration try to enforce it.
Hendrix refused to issue a national 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 liberal-leaning reputation and one in New Orleans known for its conservative rulings.
Greer Donley, an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and an expert on abortion law, said that if the conflicting rulings are upheld, the U.S. Supreme Court could feel pressured to intervene.
“Without federal abortion law, this is the kind of legal chaos that most people predicted would happen,” he said.
Sign up now for FREE, unlimited access to Reuters.com
Sign up
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb in Los Angeles; Editing by Grant McCool and Christopher Cushing
Our standards: the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Nate Raymond
Thomson Reuters
Nate Raymond reports on the judiciary and federal litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.