ARTICLE AD BOX
A federal district court issued the first post-Dobbs decision recognizing the U.S. Constitution still protects the right to abortion in specific circumstances.
And while legal opinions rarely move me to tears—as even the most progressive outcomes are typically cloaked in legal jargon that does not communicate the often urgent or tragic human experience underlying the case—Judge B. Lynn Winmill’s deeply attentive opinion in Seyb did just that.
Idaho has one of the nation’s strictest abortion regimes: Abortion is generally criminalized at every stage of pregnancy, with narrow exceptions. As Winmill writes, as a direct consequence of this ban, “a woman’s body itself is conscripted into service and forced to bear permanent damage in service of the potential life she carries.”
Winmill ruled Idaho’s abortion ban was unconstitutional on two grounds.
1. It violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying pregnant patients a fundamental right to medically indicated abortion care.
2. By excluding self-harming behavior from the law’s life-saving exception, it denied patients with mental-health conditions equal protection under the 14th Amendment.
In their initial complaint, the plaintiff Dr. Seyb and his legal team that the requested relief “will address only a fraction of the harm that Idaho’s Abortion Bans are causing.” While meaningful, they wrote, such relief alone cannot secure justice for all Idaho residents; that would require repeal of the abortion bans through legislation or direct democracy—or the Supreme Court’s reversal of Dobbs.
Voters may soon have an opportunity to pursue that broader relief: In the upcoming midterms, Idahoans can cast a vote in favor of the Idaho Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, a ballot initiative to restore abortion access in the state.
The post Talking Back to Dobbs: Federal Judge Says Idaho Can’t Force Pregnant Women to ‘Endure All Harm Short of Death’ appeared first on Ms. Magazine.
.jpeg)
English (US) ·