A Wyoming judge has ruled the week of November 27 that four doctors can argue in court that abortion is not healthcare.
Last week, Judge Melissa Owens, a Teton County judge, filed an order that allows four doctors, Timothy Hallinan and David M. Lind (both retired), and Drs. Michale Nelson and Samantha Michelena, to file a brief arguing that abortion should not be classified as health care amidst an ongoing lawsuit attempting to overturn Wyoming’s two abortion bans.
This argument comes two weeks before a Wyoming court is slated to hear a case arguing that the state’s two abortion bans are unconstitutional. A group of pro-choice advocates filed a lawsuit shortly after Wyoming’s abortion ban went into effect, attempting to overturn it.
Lawyers for the four judges filed the motion on October 16, arguing that abortion is not healthcare and that the plaintiffs’ argument is dangerous as it would promote obstetricans adopting an ideology to see their work as caring for one patient instead of two.
“In almost every case, an obstetrician is caring for two patients simultaneously: a mother and her unborn child,” says the brief, which is now part of the case record.
The brief argued that the unborn baby should be considered an obstetrician’s patient, and the doctor has a responsibility to care for the child.
Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!
“An unborn baby qualifies as an obstetrician’s ‘patient’ because the obstetrician is providing medical diagnosis or treatment to the unborn baby,” says the proposed brief. “Indeed, various medical treatments and diagnostics given or performed in pregnancy are exclusively for the unborn baby’s benefit.”
The brief seeks to defend Wyoming’s Life is a Human Right Act, which the plantiffs are seeking to overturn. The brief recognizes the law’s shortcomings but affirms that it helps to protect life and ensure prenatal care.
“Because the law authorizes preventative care, a physician need not wait for a medical emergency before providing life-preserving treatment,” says the brief.
The plaintiffs did not file a motion to oppose Owen’s acceptance of the brief but released a statement arguing that the brief acknowledges that abortions should be available when medically advisable.
“But the abortion ban unambiguously prohibits medically advisable’ abortions unless they qualify for much narrower and ambiguous exceptions,” reads the plaintiffs’ argument. “The amicus brief therefore confirms that the law requires physicians to violate the medical standard of care,” the statement says.
LifeNews Note: Jack Figge writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.
