Idaho judge relaxes abortion ban in cases where woman's life at risk
April 14 (Reuters) - Idaho's abortion ban does not prevent doctors from performing abortions when a pregnant woman's life is in danger, even if her death is "neither imminent nor assured," a judge has ruled, a victory for four patients and two doctors who sued the state to expand the ban's narrow exception for medical emergencies.
District Judge Jason Scott in Ada County state court on April 11 said that an abortion is allowed if, in the doctor's "good faith medical judgment," the patient faces "a non-negligible risk of dying sooner" without one.
Scott said the exception did not extend to cases where the danger arises from a risk of self-harm due to mental health issues. He ruled that the method of abortion must be one that, without further endangering the woman, "best facilitates the unborn child's survival outside the uterus, if feasible."
The judge also rejected the women's argument that abortion should be allowed in case of a lethal condition which would mean the fetus would not survive long after being born.
All four patients in the lawsuit were denied abortions in Idaho despite carrying fetuses which had lethal conditions and were forced to travel out of the state to have abortions, according to their 2023 lawsuit, opens new tab.
Scott did not explain his reasoning in the brief order, opens new tab, which is his final judgment in the case. The state can appeal it.
"Pregnant Idahoans whose health is in danger shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant, and we are glad the court recognized that today," Gail Deady of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "But this decision leaves behind so many people, including some of the women who brought this case.'
The office of Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Idaho's strict abortion ban had also faced a legal challenge under Democratic President Joe Biden from the federal government, which had alleged that the exception for preventing a pregnant woman's death was too narrow and conflicted with a federal law requiring hospitals to stabilize patients facing medical emergencies.
Republican President Donald Trump's administration last month dropped that case, but Idaho's largest hospital system is continuing with its own similar lawsuit and has won a preliminary order blocking enforcement of the ban in medical emergencies.
Idaho passed its near-total abortion ban, which includes an exception for saving the mother's life, in 2020 as a so-called "trigger law".
It was set to take effect when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, its landmark decision that had established abortion rights nationwide, which it did in June 2022.
The case is Adkins et al vs. State of Idaho et al, District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada, No. CV01-23-14744.
For plaintiffs: Gail Deady of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Leah Godesky of O'Melveny & Myers and others
For the state: James Craig of the Idaho Attorney General's office
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Elon Musk's brutal two-word takedown of Donald Trump's big tax break bill
Donald Trump's administration is pushing a piece of legislation in the United States which will be central to its agenda and will mean tax breaks as well as spending cuts Elon Musk lashed out at Donald Trump's"big, beautiful bill" of tax breaks and spending cuts calling it a "disgusting abomination" and testing his relationship with the President. The broadside at the centrepiece of Republicans' legislative agenda, which Musk issued on his social media platform X, came just days after the president gave him a celebratory Oval Office farewell that marked the end of his work for the administration, where he spearheaded the Department of Government Efficiency. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk posted on X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." The legislation, which has passed the House and is currently under debate in the Senate, would curtail subsidies that benefit Tesla, Musk's electric automaker. The tech billionaire followed his criticism with a threat aimed at Republicans. "In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people," he wrote in another X post. It's a sharp shift for Musk, the world's richest person who spent at least $250 million supporting Trump's campaign last year. He previously pledged to help defeat Republican lawmakers deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump, but now he's suggesting voting them out if they advance the president's legislative priority. However, it's unclear how Musk will follow through on his criticism. He recently said that he would spend "a lot less" on political campaigns, though he left the door open to political involvement "if I see a reason." The tech titan's missives could cause headaches for Republicans on Capitol Hill, who face conflicting demands from Trump and their party's wealthiest benefactor. Alex Conant, a Republican strategist, said "it's not helpful" to have Musk criticizing the legislation, but he doesn't expect lawmakers to side with Musk over Trump. "Senate Republicans are not going to let the tax cuts expire," Mr Conant said. "It just makes leadership's job that much harder to wrangle the holdouts." Trump can change the outcome in Republican primaries with his endorsements; Musk doesn't wield that level of influence, Mr Conant said. "No matter what Elon Musk or anybody else says - and I don't want to diminish him because I don't think that's fair - it's still going to be second fiddle to President Trump," said Republican West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. Musk's business interests stand to take a hit if lawmakers approve Trump's bill, which would slash funding for electric vehicles and related technologies. Musk is the chief executive of Tesla, the nation's largest electric vehicle manufacturer, and SpaceX, which has massive defence contracts. Last month, Musk said he was "disappointed" by the spending bill, a much milder criticism than the broadside he levelled on Tuesday. The budget package seeks to extend tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump's first term at the White House, and add new ones he campaigned on. It also includes a massive build-up of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security. To defray some of the lost tax revenue to the government and limit piling onto the nation's $36 trillion debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services. Musk's post threw another hurdle in front of Senate Majority Leader John Thune's already complex task to pass a bill in time for Trump to achieve his goal of signing it by July 4. The South Dakota Republican has few votes to spare in the GOP's slim 53-seat majority. Two of the Senate's most fiscally hawkish Republicans quickly backed Musk. "We can and must do better," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wrote on X. Utah Sen. Mike Lee said "federal spending has become excessive," adding that it causes inflation and "weaponizes government." Still, Trump enjoys fierce loyalty among the GOP base, and in the end, his opinion may be the only one that matters. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt played down Musk's criticism. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," Ms Leavitt said, and Musk's post "doesn't change the president's opinion." The tension in the GOP delighted Democrats, who found themselves in the unlikely position of siding with Musk. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than $4.5 trillion in tax cuts - with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home. "We're in complete agreement," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said of Musk. The New York Democratic lawmaker stood alongside a poster-sized printout of Musk's post during a Capitol news conference. The last time Musk weighed in significantly on legislation, the scenario was far different. His power was ascendant after the election, with Trump joining him for a rocket test in Texas and appointing him to spearhead the Department of Government Efficiency. During the transition period, Musk started whipping up opposition to legislation that would prevent a government shutdown, posting about it repeatedly on X, his social media platform. Trump soon weighed in, encouraging Republicans to back out of a bipartisan deal. Lawmakers eventually patched together a new agreement.
Daily Record
23 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Donald Trump 'may not last White House term' as advisor spots 'cognitive' issue
A political advisor has claimed that Donald Trump's time in office may be curtailed due to his 'cognitive decline', as he struggles to articulate his thoughts and communicate A Republican political strategist has hinted that US President Donald Trump may not complete his term due to potential cognitive issues. Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, a political action committee, expressed his concerns on Times Radio, suggesting that Trump's behaviour indicates more than just senior moments. This comes shortly after Trump passed a psychological and physical assessment. He stated: "He is incoherent. His inability to articulate any thought or position without constant asides, constant lapses, the verbal aphasias he is experiencing at various points." This follows claims from another former presidential advisor that Trump might be suffering from syphilis. Wilson continued: "As a very close observer of Trump since 2015, I can tell you the man you're watching today is not the Trump of 2015, nor is he the Trump of 2020, he's not even the Trump of 2024," reports the Mirror US. The advisor pointed out that Trump's struggle with communication is not unusual for someone of his age. He added: "There is a decline in Trump's ability to communicate, there is a decline in Trump's ability to articulate his thoughts. This is not uncommon when people get older." Furthermore, Wilson revealed that he is not alone in his concerns about Trump's mental sharpness, as other experts, without solid proof, suspect that Trump could be suffering from dementia, according to the Irish Star. He remarked: "There are an awful lot of professionals in the world who are looking at the same set of behaviours and saying 'This is what we see in early dementia cases'... this is what we see when there is a cognitive decline. "Just circling the elephant on the cognitive test does not make Donald Trump not suffering from the ravages of age and ill health." Trump's health has been a topic of speculation, especially after concerns earlier this year about his unexpected weight loss and its possible reasons. It is noteworthy that he is the same age as Joe Biden was when Biden became president in early-2021. Furthermore, a bombshell book by Jake Tapper has fuelled discussions with assertions of Biden's health waning since entering office, overshadowing the White House's statements regarding Trump's health, despite his clean bill of health in April. Captain Sean Barbabella, his physician, issued a statement confirming Trump's health: "President Trump remains in excellent health, exhibiting robust cardiac, pulmonary, neurological, and general physical function. "President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State."
New European
an hour ago
- New European
The charlatans are clearly here to stay
We, on the old continent and elsewhere, wondered if the electorate or the candidate were to blame. Are Republican voters especially gullible or is Donald Trump simply inevitable? It's still too early to tell. It is also becoming clear that, regrettably, we can't just point to the other side of the Atlantic and wince anymore. As it turns out, just about enough people on our side of the pond are gluttons for punishment too. For a little while, it looked like the US were the exception. Americans voted for a hard- right populist and things went about as well as expected, and so he got voted out again. A term later, however, just about enough people decided that, actually, they just hadn't had enough yet, and so they brought the charlatan back into power. Back in 2023, Poland finally voted to oust the increasingly, worryingly populist Law and Order Party, and make centre-right Donald Tusk Pprime Miminister instead. It felt like good news both for the country and for the European Union, though the former eurocrat struggled to be as effective as he wanted. Andrzej Duda, the president, hailed from Law and Order, and swore to be a thorn in the government's side. There were hopes that things would change this year, as the country was due to elect a new president last month. In the end, after a nail-biter of an election night, Trump supporter and eurosceptic Karol Nawrocki won against centrist Rafal Trzaskowski. Tusk has said that the election won't change a thing, but is likely to be putting on a brave face. Poland got close, briefly, to entering a new era of politics, but has instead chosen to take a step backwards. It isn't yet guaranteed that the Czech Republic will follow suit later this year, but things aren't looking great. According to opinion polls, Andrej Babiš is currently the frontrunner and projected to become prime minister again, four years after being booted out of office. Suggested Reading The hard right will tear itself apart Alastair Campbell Another populist, Babiš, is a famous Kremlin sympathiser. His election would spell trouble for Ukraine, which has, so far during the war, been able to rely on the country as a steadfast ally. He has also been investigated multiple times for, among others, fraud, conflict of interest, corruption and intimidation, which may remind you of a certain someone. It seems remarkable that Czech voters would give him another run at governing the country but, unless something drastic happens between now and the autumn, Babiš is all but certain to become prime minister again. Both sets of elections are concerning in and of themselves, but also because of what they represent. There was a hope, once upon a time, that most people only ever voted for populist parties because they were fed up with the establishment and wanted to shake things up a bit. They didn't actually want those people in power or, at the very least, would realise they'd made a mistake quickly enough. Mainstream parties and commentators also assumed, perhaps too smugly, that populists couldn't govern and would end up being their own worst enemies. Give them enough rope and… well, you know the rest. A decade on, it seems worth asking: how's that working out for us, then? Is sunshine the best disinfectant after all, or should we find a better way to deal with populism in our democracies? These are questions which should be haunting Downing Street. Britain elected a centre- left government last year, but current opinion polls don't make for happy reading in Labour circles. Nigel Farage is once again stalking British politics, and it doesn't seem clear that anyone knows how to stop him before the next election. That both the traditional left and right are trying to neutralise Reform by aping their language and policy positions hardly feels like a good sign. It's a method that's been tried and tested around the world, and the results speak for themselves. In any case, 2025 ought to be the year when those in power and in the mainstream realise that the populist right cannot be treated as an aberration any longer. Like it or not, it will not vanish by itself. There is a lot that separates American politics from its equivalents both in Europe and on our shores, but we're all facing similar problems. Neither panic nor pandering have worked to solve them so far, but a way forward must be found, as the charlatans are clearly here to stay.
