The appeals panel says the woman bringing the suit didn't have standing to stop the law since she wasn't charged with a crime. In the meantime, however, the judges also found that the law places an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.
The Associated Press/Washington Post: Judges: Idaho Woman Lacks Standing To Fight Fetal Pain Abortion Law; Other Challenges OK
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ended an Idaho woman's challenge of a law banning some abortions that might cause fetal pain, saying she didn't have legal standing to contest it because she wasn't charged with that crime (9/11).
The Hill: Court Ends Challenge To 'Fetal Pain' Abortion Law
A federal appeals court has ended one of the first-ever challenges to a law that bans some abortions by citing fetal pain. The mixed decision from the Ninth Circuit also favored plaintiff Jennie Linn McCormack by dismissing a criminal case against her. McCormack faced up to five years in prison after ingesting medication to induce an abortion, which is illegal in Idaho, where she lives. In its ruling, the court said the Idaho law places an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion care by making them, rather than simply abortion providers, liable for rule-breaking (Viebeck, 9/11).
In the meantime, Republican lawmakers in Missouri will try Wednesday to overturn the governor's veto of a bill that would ban requirements on employers or insurers to cover contraception or abortion in their health insurance plans.
Kansas City Star: Missouri Veto Session Will Focus On Birth-Control Coverage Bill
When lawmakers officially convene today at the Missouri Capitol for their annual veto session, debate over a woman's access to birth control will likely take center stage. Republican legislative leaders are confident they have enough votes to overturn Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of a bill that states no employer or health insurance provider can be compelled to provide coverage for contraception, abortion or sterilization if doing so violates their religious or moral convictions. Supporters frame the debate as an attempt to protect religious liberty and stop the encroachment of government into private businesses (Hancock, 9/12).