DOJ challenges Idaho abortion law, sues state over reproductive care | USA TODAY

The DOJ sued the state of Idaho over the state’s new abortion law, its first challenge since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

RELATED: Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, other Dems arrested during abortion rights protest | USA TODAY

The Idaho law, set to take effect Aug. 25, imposes a near-total ban on abortion and violates federal law, which allows for the procedure in cases when emergency treatment is necessary to stabilize patients, federal officials said.

» Subscribe to USA TODAY:
» Watch more on this and other topics from USA TODAY:
» USA TODAY delivers current local and national news, sports, entertainment, finance, technology, and more through award-winning journalism, photos, videos and VR.

#abortion #reproductiverights #DOJ

39 comments

    1. No it doesn’t. I read the law and have it pulled up ready to copy/paste if you need. It says a doctor can be arrested and charged for performing an abortion, and then the doctor needs to prove in a court case that the woman was at risk of death. There is no provision at all for stabilizing in emergencies or when the certainty of death is unknown. Likewise, what is the practicality of a doctor performing an abortion to save a woman’s life even, then each time it happens getting arrested, charged, possibly put in prison, having to hire an attorney, then going through an entire court case to prove that the woman was going to die. And what about a case like miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy where there is a great risk, but not guarantee of death. Isn’t it better to protect a woman from the possibility of death in the first place instead of letting her get so bad that she’s on her death bed, then try to revive her?

    2. @miriveq “The law only makes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the pregnant person’s life”
      Once again….. A medical emergency is not illegal in Idaho. 🤷‍♂️

  1. So supreme court decided to leave to the states, and now the federal is deciding to get involved anyway. What was the point of even having a supreme court when the government ignores their branch rulings?

  2. ………no sex in Idaho??…..cheaper for all to buy pants and underwear with pad 🔐 locks..🐣

  3. What Federal law are they saying Idaho is violating again. To my recollection, the Congress never passed one concerning abortion. Not in 50 years.

    1. Idaho law was in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law that states any “hospital that receives Medicare funds must provide necessary stabilizing treatment to a patient who arrives at an emergency room suffering from a medical condition that could place their life or health in serious jeopardy.”

  4. Merrick earned his position by playing the role as the FED “Fix It Man” for the OKC bombing. Try to research it. The official narrative is unassailable.

  5. They figured Idaho was the first and weakest that they could try to bring down I’d like to know what the heck the department of Justice has to do with abortion law

  6. uh huh… let break this down the doctors get to determine what IS and ISN’T a medical emergency not politicians, its to my knowledge that any doctors will perform an abortion under the conditions where there is a high risk of the mother losing her life or causing long term physical damage (this don’t include scars or C sections) in the other cases where a doctor WILL perform an abortion is in cases of rape/incest and they will have to have a police report to confirm that… there is NO law that can be made to prevent a doctor from doing this so can the DOJ explain what they’re suing Idaho for??

    i mean there is videos on Hunter Biden laptop with him doing drugs, laundering money, taking bribes on behalf of his father, conning ppl, human trafficking, child abuse etc etc… so the DOJ ain’t going to go after him?? uh huh.. we seeing it, you can’t hide…

  7. I don’t understand all the political fighting around the legality or morality of abortions. Rights not afforded to citizens in the Constitution are subject to the jurisdiction, legislation, and regulation of the State and Federal Government, and essentially fall into one bucket—your rights end where another’s begin.

    There is no Constitutional right to abortion, but there’s also no infringement on my rights if someone wants to get one. That being said, I also have no obligation to pay for a non-medically necessary abortion if someone uses publicly funded healthcare to cover the costs of the procedure. (I use medically necessary to indicate that the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or the child, or that the pregnancy is the result of incest, rape, or other form of a sexual crime/sexual traumatic event)

    So as someone who would not choose an abortion unless it were medically necessary—I have no right to enforce that opinion on someone else. I do however have a right to disagree with the decisions of others, and advocate for education about resources to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

    Ultimately, a bi-partisan agreement should allow abortions to be a federally protected procedure, declare the parameters for identifying a medically necessary procedure, protecting and affording medical professionals the right to identify and support cases of medically and non-medically necessary abortions, and allow states to determine the financial obligations for abortion procedures.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.