2026-08-14T17:49:20.712Z / 路透社
2024年4月24日，美国华盛顿美国最高法院，在大法官就爱达荷州共和党支持的近乎全面堕胎禁令在医疗紧急情况下的合法性进行口头辩论当日，支持堕胎权的标语牌被放在地上。REUTERS/凯文·拉马尔克/档案照片 购买授权，打开新标签页
- 内容摘要
- 爱达荷州法律允许进行挽救生命的堕胎
- 法官表示，宪法保护因健康风险而进行的堕胎
- 多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案裁决后同类首例联邦法院判决
8月14日（路透社）——一名美国法官裁定，爱达荷州的近乎全面堕胎禁令违宪，因为该法律仅在堕胎可挽救生命的情况下提供例外，而非针对孕妇更广泛的健康风险。
美国博伊西地区联邦法官林恩·温米尔在周四晚间发布的一份长达81页的裁决中表示，保护孕妇健康的堕胎权受美国宪法第十四修正案保护，该修正案保障法律下的正当程序和平等保护。
立即通过《每日案卷》新闻简报将最新法律新闻发送到您的收件箱，开启您的早晨。在此处订阅。
代表就该州法律提起诉讼的爱达荷州医生的律师表示，这是自2022年美国最高法院推翻1973年赋予全国堕胎合法化的《罗伊诉韦德案》以来，联邦法官首次在特定情况下承认堕胎权的宪法权利。
对州堕胎限制的法律挑战
自最高法院裁决以来，爱达荷州和其他十多个州已全面禁止几乎所有堕胎行为，另有数个州对堕胎实施严格限制，引发了一系列尚未裁决的法律诉讼。2024年，最高法院恢复了一项要求爱达荷州在女性遭遇医疗紧急情况时允许堕胎的裁决，但未就案件的实质是非作出裁决。
温米尔阻止了爱达荷州两项法律的执行，这两项法律禁止医生为患有严重疾病的患者提供堕胎护理，包括可能增加自残和自杀风险的精神健康状况。
“孕妇的健康不是可以由立法机关随意分配的州资源，”曾由民主党前总统比尔·克林顿任命的温米尔写道。
爱达荷州总检察长、共和党人劳尔·拉布拉多表示，其办公室将提起上诉，并相信该裁决会被推翻。
“温米尔法官……在法庭上立法，并凭空创造了一项新的堕胎宪法权利，”拉布拉多在一份声明中说道。
原告斯泰西·赛布是一名母胎医学专家，由堕胎权利组织法律之声和法律项目代理，该组织在一份声明中对该裁决表示欢迎。
“这项裁决降低了爱达荷州孕妇因可预防原因死亡或遭受严重伤害的风险，”法律项目执行主任斯蒂芬妮·托蒂说道。
反对堕胎且未参与此案的保守基督教团体爱达荷家庭政策中心表示，爱达荷州的堕胎禁令总体上仍然有效，其中包括一项允许堕胎胎儿的亲属起诉堕胎提供者的条款。
“任何实施（爱达荷州）法律所禁止的堕胎行为的医生，仍可能因违法而承担责任，”该组织主席布莱恩·孔扎蒂在一份声明中说道。
温米尔拒绝阻止针对胎儿患有致命性疾病时的堕胎禁令，除非该疾病对母亲的健康构成严重威胁。他表示，尽管“有些人可能会认为该法律残酷”，但宪法赋予州立法机关通过该法律的自由裁量权。
但这位法官表示，几个世纪以来，各州一直承认，为防止严重且持久的伤害，堕胎可能是必要的。
“通过禁止女性在怀孕构成严重危险时获得必要的医疗护理，爱达荷州违背了这一悠久传统以及保护自身免受伤害的基本权利，”他写道。
丹尼尔·威斯纳在纽约奥尔巴尼报道 亚历克西亚·加拉姆法尔维和罗德·尼克尔编辑
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则，打开新标签页
丹·威斯纳（@danwiessner）报道劳工与就业以及移民法，包括诉讼和政策制定。您可以通过daniel.wiessner@thomsonreuters.com联系他。
Idaho must allow abortions to preserve women’s health, US judge rules
2026-08-14T17:49:20.712Z / Reuters
Placards in support of abortion rights lie on the ground on the day the Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments over the legality of Idaho’s Republican-backed, near-total abortion ban in medical-emergency situations, at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., April 24, 2024. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Summary
- Idaho law allows life-saving abortions
- Constitution protects abortions over health risks, judge says
- First ruling of its kind since Roe v. Wade overturned
Aug 14 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge has ruled that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban is unconstitutional because it provides exceptions when abortions are life-saving and not for broader risks to pregnant women’s health.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill in Boise said in
an 81-page ruling, opens new tab
issued late on Thursday that the right to a health-preserving abortion is protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
The ruling is the first by a federal judge to recognize a constitutional right to abortion in certain circumstances since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, according to lawyers for the Idaho doctor who sued over the state laws.
LEGAL CHALLENGES TO STATE RESTRICTIONS
Idaho and a dozen other states have banned virtually all abortions since the Supreme Court ruling, and several other states severely restrict them, prompting a series of pending legal challenges. The Supreme Court in 2024 reinstated a decision requiring Idaho to allow abortions when women are having medical emergencies, but did not weigh in on the merits of the case.
Winmill blocked enforcement of two Idaho laws to the extent that they prohibit doctors from providing abortion care to patients with serious medical conditions, including mental health conditions that can raise the risk of self-harm and suicide.
“A pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource to be allocated at the legislature’s whim,” wrote Winmill, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton.
Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a Republican, said his office would appeal and was confident the decision would be overturned.
“Judge Winmill … legislated from the bench and manufactured a new constitutional right to abortion,” Labrador said in a statement.
Plaintiff Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, is represented by abortion rights groups Legal Voice and the Lawyering Project, which welcomed the decision in a statement.
“This ruling reduces the risk that pregnant people in Idaho will die or suffer serious injury from preventable causes,” said Stephanie Toti, the Lawyering Project’s executive director.
The Idaho Family Policy Center, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion and is not involved in the case, said Idaho’s abortion ban broadly remains in effect, including a provision allowing relatives of an aborted fetus to sue abortion providers.
“Any physician who performs an abortion that is prohibited by (Idaho) law can still be liable for breaking the law,” Blaine Conzatti, the group’s president, said in a statement.
Winmill declined to block a ban on abortion when a fetus has a life-limiting condition, unless the condition poses a serious threat to the mother’s health. He said that while “some may find the law cruel,” the Constitution gave state lawmakers the discretion to adopt it.
But the judge said states have for centuries recognized that abortions can be necessary to prevent serious and lasting harm.
“By prohibiting women from obtaining essential medical care when pregnancy poses a severe danger, Idaho contradicts this long tradition and the underlying right to defend oneself from harm,” he wrote.
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Rod Nickel
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
Dan Wiessner (@danwiessner) reports on labor and employment and immigration law, including litigation and policy making. He can be reached at daniel.wiessner@thomsonreuters.com.
发表回复