Family planning and several health care providers filed a lawsuit the following month, claiming that such restrictions violated the First Amendment right to free speech. Providers are not restricted from referring out-of-state patients for prenatal care or other treatments, they noted.
Medical professionals “will have to choose between incurring criminal penalties themselves or providing referrals and information to legal out-of-state medical services for their patients,” U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said Monday. stated in the order. “Simply put, their speech will be callous.”
The case is one of two targeted at Idaho’s strict abortion laws. Another lawsuit challenges new Idaho measures that make it illegal to help minors have abortions without parental consent. Attorneys general from 20 states submitted briefs to courts Tuesday asking them to block it.
“The Constitution protects an individual’s right to move between states, and Idaho’s radical Congress cannot abolish that right,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.
Even before the U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs Last year’s decision overturned a landmark ruling on abortion rights. Law vs. WadeSome Idaho residents traveled to neighboring states for surgery simply because there was a clinic nearby.
But the following year, when abortion was criminalized in Idaho, neighboring states saw a significant increase in abortions, with about 1,500 in Washington, more than 1,300 in Oregon, and more than 1,300 in Oregon, according to data from the Planned Parenthood Association. About 2,600 aborted in Nevada.
“In states where abortion is legal, health care providers who help patients get the abortion care they need face the threat of punishment,” said Megan Burroughs, staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. It shouldn’t be done,” he said.
Winmill’s order blocked the Attorney General’s Office from enforcing the Idaho abortion law according to Labrador’s interpretation. For technical and procedural reasons, he said the state health care provider’s license to refer patients for out-of-state abortions or to prescribe abortion drugs for patients to pick up in another state. It did not prevent the Nursing Board from stopping.
But Idaho ACLU participating attorney Colleen Smith said plaintiffs believe the same rationale that the judge applied to the attorney general’s office should apply to the commission. rice field.
The Board has not indicated its intention to initiate suspension of provider licenses in such cases. Bob McLaughlin, a spokesman for the Idaho Department of Vocational and Professional Licensing, said the Idaho Medical Board does not comment on pending lawsuits.
“I think they probably got the message that it wasn’t the proper interpretation based on the court’s decision,” Smith said.
In a statement, Stanton Health Care, an anti-abortion and pregnancy center in Boise, said it was “deeply troubled” by Winmill’s order, saying it “only facilitates ‘abortion trafficking.'”
“This decision runs counter to the Idaho Legislature, which has built a protective wall around women and their unborn children through the Life Affirmation Act, which promotes happiness and hope,” the statement said.
Labrador’s office argued that it does not have the authority to criminally prosecute providers who refer patients out of state. Additionally, state attorneys noted that Labrador formally retracted the letter after filing the lawsuit, saying its analysis was “invalid.”
Attorney General’s Office Communications Director Beth Cahill suggested Winmill, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1995, was biased.
“There have been very few times in his 28-year career that Judge Winmill has ruled against family planning, so his ruling is not surprising,” Cahill said. “Judge Winmill wants to curb the powers we don’t have. We strongly oppose his orders.”
Winmill said in the order that the state of Labrador later issued a letter withdrawing its legal opinion, but the attorney general did not actually deny the reasoning — which the county prosecutor said. He pointed out that it could have a significant impact.
“The Attorney General has sought to distance himself in every possible way from his previous statements without promising new interpretations or providing any assurances to the Court or health care providers,” Winmill said. wrote Mr. “Attorney General Labrador’s targeted silence is deafening.”
