{"id":274295,"date":"2022-08-16T10:49:32","date_gmt":"2022-08-16T15:49:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=274295"},"modified":"2022-08-15T17:48:38","modified_gmt":"2022-08-15T22:48:38","slug":"idaho-supreme-court-pro-life-laws-effect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/idaho-supreme-court-pro-life-laws-effect\/","title":{"rendered":"Idaho Supreme Court rules pro-life laws can take effect despite lawsuits"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

After multiple lawsuits attempting to keep protections for preborn children from taking effect, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the state’s favor while the cases make their way through the courts. Therefore, multiple protections, including a heartbeat law<\/a> modeled after the Texas Heartbeat Act and a trigger law, will take effect on August 25.<\/p>\n

The ruling was released late Friday<\/a>, denying requests from Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, and abortionist Caitlin Gustafson to block the laws until the cases were settled.<\/p>\n

Idaho was one of several states<\/a> to have a trigger law in place when Roe v. Wade<\/em> was overturned. The law was written to take effect 30 days after the formal judgment overturning Roe<\/em> was issued, which is August 25. Planned Parenthood sued in June to block that law.<\/p>\n

Another law, the heartbeat law, protects preborn children from abortion starting at six weeks, which is generally when a preborn child’s heartbeat can be detected (though the heart begins to beat by 22 days post-fertilization). That legislation was written so the law would be triggered 30 days after an appellate court upholds a similar law in another state, which recently took place<\/a> in Georgia.<\/p>\n

Finally, the third law allows relatives of a preborn child to sue abortionists for committing an abortion, though rapists are blocked from being allowed to sue.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court merged the three lawsuits into one, and ruled<\/a> that Planned Parenthood and Gustafson failed to show that allowing the laws to take effect would cause “irreparable harm.”<\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0Biden DOJ sues Idaho, claims pro-life laws will prevent women from receiving \u2018medical care\u2019<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWhat petitioners are asking this Court to ultimately do is to declare a right to abortion under the Idaho Constitution when \u2014 on its face \u2014 there is none,\u201d Justice Robin Brody wrote for the majority. \u201cIn fact, before Roe announced a federal constitutional right to abortion in 1973, abortion had been a longstanding criminal offense in Idaho.\u201d<\/p>\n

All of the laws include exceptions for medical emergencies; Gustafson and Planned Parenthood argued that these exceptions were too vague. Yet there are lifesaving options for a child’s mother in serious situations that\u00a0do not necessitate<\/a>\u00a0intentionally killing a preborn child. Treating serious health conditions and\/or things like ectopic pregnancy are\u00a0not induced abortions<\/a> \u2014 something Planned Parenthood itself knows, despite its attempts to mask that reality<\/a> from the public in recent weeks.<\/p>\n