E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said an Idaho woman who aborted her pregnancy by taking pills instead of traveling to a clinic or hospital as required by state law should not have been criminally charged.
In the same opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court upheld a U.S District Court decision that ruled the woman could not challenge an Idaho state law that bans most abortions after 19 weeks under the premise that fetuses feel pain at that stage of development.
In 2010, Jennie Linn McCormack, an unmarried mother of three, was pregnant, unemployed and receiving between $200 and $250 a month in child support, according to the court opinion.
McCormack searched for an abortion provider but there were none in Bannock County, where she lived, the court opinion said, adding in a footnote that 87 percent of counties in the U.S. do not have abortion providers.
She knew she could get an abortion in Salt Lake City, Utah, about 138 miles away, but the procedure would cost between $400 and $2,000, the opinion said.
Watch the Top Videos on NBCNews.com
Instead McCormack chose RU-486, a medication that induces an abortion, which she ordered online. The drug is approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and can be prescribed over the Internet. The drug is for early pregnancies, however, and McCormack was much farther along.
She confided in a friend, and that friend's sister tipped off police, National Public Radio reported. Police found the fetus wrapped up on her back porch.
McCormack was charged by Bannock County prosecutors last year under a 1972 Idaho law that requires abortions be performed by a physician at a licensed abortion facility. If convicted, she would have faced up to five years in prison.
“There are many cases where they prosecute or threaten to prosecute a doctor," Richard Hearn, McCormack's attorney, told NPR. "There are not so many where they’ve prosecuted a woman.”
Around the time of her arrest, Idaho passed a statute making it illegal for women to obtain abortions after their 19th week of pregnancy, the AP reported. In the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, lawmakers argued that fetuses start feeling pain around 20 weeks.
McCormack was not charged under this statute, although she did challenge it in her lawsuit.
Read the appeals court opinion (.pdf)
The criminal case against McCormack was dismissed and on Sept. 16, 2011, she filed a broad lawsuit claiming that Idaho's abortion law is unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on women, which flies in the face of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the U.S.
An Idaho federal judge issued an injunction saying the law could not be enforced against McCormack.
In its opinion, the 9th Circuit largely agreed with McCormack and her counsel. Criminal abortion statutes typically apply to doctors, who perform unhealthy abortions that threaten women's safety, the unanimous three-judge panel said.
Further, Idaho's law is at odds with Roe v. Wade, the judges said, because pregnant women should not be criminally charged nor expected to “explore the intricacies of state abortion statutes."
Under the law, they said, women in McCormack's position have three choices: To carefully read Idaho law, violate the law or not get an abortion.
The opinion also points to a letter the state's attorney general wrote about the abortion law, in which he says the law "plainly intends to erect a substantial obstacle to the right to choose."
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
At this point in the litigation, only McCormack cannot be prosecuted -- not women generally, the court said. McCormack may ultimately get a judgment that strikes down the law entirely, the 9th Circuit said.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Evidence shows White House got many pre-9/11 warnings
- FAO: VA struggles to calculate lost wages for wounded vets
- Key question in Chicago strike: How do you measure a teacher
- Professor in Ala. university shooting rampage pleads guilty
- Jailbird ex-cops talk about Drew Peterson's fate in prison
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
How Conservatives who want less govt intrusion into business yet want the govt to intrude into the lives of women can wrap their heads around these two opposite ideas is just hypocritical. These same Conservatives wouldnt give a dime to support these unwanted babies, but make no mistake these unwanted babies will cost the state millions in foster care or in other services.
You are absolutely correct. The real issue for anti abortion groups is that pregnancy and parenthood are the appropriate punishments for women who have sex. They have not an iota of concern for children or women once those children are born. Its the governments responsibility to bring all pregnancies to term and the mother's responsibility for everything after that.
Anita another argument conseratives use is they dont want their taxdollars being used to support abortions, yet our taxdollars are used to support that unwanted baby, do I get to chose not to support babies with my taxdollars? Tell me which is cheaper, a state supported birth followed by a unwanted child who has the odds against them, all which could cost millions, or a $400 abortion?
i'm a fiscal conservative, no religous objection to abortion whatsoever. but i sure as hell dont want to pay for it. abortion or birth control. if you want the government out of your business, to include your vagina, then keep them out of your business. this includea expecting other people to pay for the consequences (intended or not) of your sexual activities because you are too cheap and too stupid to use a condom. if you dont wrap that rascal its not the taxpayers responsibility or fault that you get knocked up. there are some things people need to take care of for themselves. the minute you ask for public funds, take money away from people, then the public gets a say, to include the religious folks. the whole taxation without representation thing that was a driver towards out independence. far past time people demonstrate that independence by taking some responsibility for themselves...
BD- lets play a hypothetical game, you lose your job and have to go on public aide, now I am a tax payer, do I have any say in your life what so ever? Will you welcome me being over your shoulder telling you what you can and can't buy because I put money into a system? Its also a little funny to me that you aren't complaining about Viagra being covered by insurance if you are so "fiscally conservative"
i'm sorry, was the article and debate about viagra being covered by insurance? well, lets answer that stupid and assumptive comback, get that out of the way. if its private insurance, paid by a private individual, they can cover whatever they like. they can cover breast augmentation or sex change for all i care. if the boss who is opposed or the government has to pay, then hell no it shouldn't be required to cover boner pills so some limpdick can get their freak on. so, what does someone losing their job, verses someone not taking care of their personal sexual responsibilities have in common? and yes, as a taxpayer, you do get a political say in unemployment compensation as decided through your elected officials, just as these religious folks you complain about get a political say in abortion and/or abortion funding. if you dont want someone involved in a "private" issue, then keep in "private", not just when it is convenient for you financially.
If you really were a fiscal conservative, you'd be happier if the country actually did pay for abortions (it does not - so you were actually wrong in your premise, but regardless, you'd be happier if it did...) because an abortion would cost you less as a taxpayer than TANF for the typical unwanted child of a poor single parent.
so your premise is that, when two people decide to have sex, and pregancy results, then the people are automatically on the hook to foot the bill, abortion or welfare? that government absolutely must tax and spend on something, so it's just got to "either this or that"? whatever happened to people shouldering some responsibility for thier own actions? people claim to want their freedoms, do as they please, but then line up with their hands out when uncle sugar comes around...
Gosh you really didn't read what I wrote for meaning. You apparently just glossed right over to it, rushing to post another vacuous attempt to defend the indefensible imposition of your personal preferences onto the bodies of other people.
My premise is that people who claim to oppose reproductive choice on the basis of fiscal conservative that they're lying to themselves and others, because fiscal conservatism isn't really their reasoning - it's just a rationalization for their indefensible imposition of their personal preferences onto the bodies of other people.
In the future, don't try to surmise or guess what I mean. I you truly are this far off in your comprehension of what I've written, then clearly you aren't in a position to try to restate what I've written in any appreciable way.
If you don't know that the various reproductive choices all involve taking responsibility, then you really don't know what you're talking about. Stop bringing up vacuous nonsense.
I am pro-choice all the way..a woman has every right to do whatever she wants with her body..there are far too many unwanted children in the ward of the state..while costing taxpayers millions of dollars while waiting to be adopted(which by the way is very long and tedious process) if at all..I can't understand why anyone has to pay for an abortion, they are performed here in Canada at hospitals free of charge to the woman..seems the good ole US of A is behind the times..
To all you ignorant Republitards....is it better that this woman had a child she didn't want and couldn't afford and then this child becomes a burden on the taxpayers?? That makes no since! Even if she had the baby full term and put it up for adoption, the taxpayers would still be on the hook for the prenatal care. Think people!
To you ignorant Democraps, I am all for women getting scraped and want it available to those in need and I do not vote the Dem's ticket. Ironic comment from you regarding tax payers expences considering how the welfare moms of unknown quantites of kids are who the Dem's court during elections.
Forgetting about the money we threw at Wall Street? How come its only welfare when POOR people get the money? Repugs...still living somewhere in the last century...and believeing those same OLD SCHOOL lies!
why does it have to be an "either or" proposition with you nitwits? quit spending money on ALL of that crap. just because someone doesnt want their tax dollars going to abortion, welfare, or any other handout doesnt mean they want it going to coorporate handouts either. what a friggin stupid rationalization and comeback...
Square Dude
By your arguement: If these babies are unwanted and will cost money it should be acceptable to kill them, therefore, given that prisoners are unwanted and will cost money they, also should simply be killed to solve that problem as well!
Anita
You state "pregnancy and parenthood are appropiate punishments for women who have sex" ! It seems that for all the history of mankind they have been, instead the Natural Results of having sex! If a woman doesn't wish to become pregnant, it would seem that she should make sure that BOTH she and her partner have taken proper precautions to prevent it from happening!
The primary reason for unwanted pregnancies, barring Incest or Rape, is irresponsible sexual behavior!
These arent babies until they are outside the body, they are fetuses. Your belief that a fetus is a baby is just that, your own personal belief, its not supported by the courts or law. Yet you want to impose your beliefs on others, what kind of state does that, not the one I live in thank God.
Not all birth control works 100% Ted.
so becasue birth control wasnt 100%, someone else gets to pay for it? thats the risk you take for having sex, take responsibility for your decision. the public didnt get to share in the fun, did they?
To those who are anti choice and claim all life is precious I have a question. How many unwanted babies have you adopted or are fostering right now? If you have none in your home you are a hypocrite. It is easy to claim the sanctity of life when you are not inconvenienced by it, knowing that unwanted baby will never darken you door right? If you are incapable of giving birth (males)or are not in the age group that can, YOU HAVE NO SAY IN IT! Idiots. What is better about being a person who recognizes free choice is they would never FORCE another into having an abortion. I would rather people use the many products out there that prevents nearly to 100% the chance of getting pregnant instead of using an abortion as that tool but it is there for a reason. Chances are the anti abortion clods are the same group that does not want sex ed in schools etc. Get over you biased natures be it generated by your religion or whatever and understand that all of you out there pleased when your boy is sexually active because it is his right of passage crap then guess who is enjoying their right of passage during that time as well, the other citizens of our country that will not be counted as second class anymore.
With nearly 6.5 to 7 billion of us, what is the need to add more anyway?
While seeing all these comments about if you want to have sex, I don't want to pay for it, I have to laugh a little at things like viagara and cialis being stuff covered by insurance...hey bro, if you can't get it up, why should my tax dollars have to pay for to have sex?
I believe if we incorporated this into the argument, the argument would cease.
Really...... to the person who made this statement...
I also am sick to death of men taking absolutely no responsibility and then making the woman out to be a murderous slut who should have kept her legs closed and her panties on. It's truly sickening.
Sex takes two. Making a baby takes two. An egg must be fertilized with sperm. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, it is often the male who suggests abortion. It's so much easier for him than taking responsibility. One procedure and he can tidy up his life real nice. She, of course, goes to hell. If the woman refuses the abortion, she is on her own. Nice.
It is amazing to me that women all over the world claim to want total control over their bodies until the show a lack of control and leave it so someone else to make the decision for birth control and then say its the man's fault.... part of being in control of your own self is being held accountable for YOUR actions. If you didn't want a child you either should have thought of that before having sex unprotected or not have sex. Have we become so low like animals that we cannot say no to sex when it may mean pregnancy may happen because there is no protection? Honestly... you women need to get a grip and get over yourselves. You cannot have it both ways.. I am in control over my own body (prevent pregnancy) and then when it happens because of lack of SELF CONTROL blame someone else. If you don't want the chance of being left with a child to be raised alone then just say no to sex if there is any chance of that happening... instead you punish the innocent child who was created because of your lack of self control.
NOTE: THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO WOMEN WHO WERE RAPED. ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE NO SELF CONTROL
It seems you falsely think all birth control is 100%. You also overlook the fact that abortion is completely legal in the US and that no one is obligated to defend their decisions to anyone else who's not directly involved - particularly to people who, like yourself, must be completely immune from making impulsive or bad decisions ever.
I wont get sucked into all these tiny word games. When it comes to any type of law that centers around the morality of a particular private act, there is always one group of self righteous people that only to happy to enforce, impose their values on others regardless of the beliefs or lack of them on strangers.
Personally, I dont believe in a god or supernatural being of any type, or a heaven or hell, its all superstition or mythology in my opinion. If you have faith in a god, im happy for you. But you have no right at all to force others to follow your morality.
then keep the private act private, to include private funding of birth control and abortion. as soon as you ask the public to pay, the public has a say, including the self-righteous superstitious, and the folks that are fed up with you a-holes on both sides...
Where was the fetus' father. Why didn't he help her get a legal abortion? So much falls on women. The sex usually isn't even very good. Men have the fun. Women have the responsibility. It's ridiculous.
Your sexism aside, there isn't enough in the story to comment on the potential father to be. Maybe he didn't want it to be aborted..
As to what falls on women, there is a cost to being the boss..
her body, her decision. and it appears she paid for that pill herself, too. even saved us a welfare baby. as far as i'm concerned, not a public matter...
I'm glad I won't ever have to make the decision to abort or not. I've seen a couple of women agonize over this issue. It's not always just a simple "I don't care about anyone but me" decision. If a woman or a couple(and I say couple because sometimes both parties weigh in on this decision) are not ready or in a position or capable of bringing up a child, then making the tough choice can also be the responsible choice.
Don't give me that crap they shouldn't have had sex. That's an unrealistic expectation and sometimes birth control fails. Sex is an intimate part of relationships and let's face it, it feels good folks and that's what keeps us coming back for more. This isn't the middle ages and even back then there were plenty of bastard children running around. You'd rather pay for the bastard children? You'd rather pay for another welfare child?
Don't give me that crap about "God" says either, "God" killed the first born of an entire nation according to the Bible because of one man.
If your choice wouldn't be to abort that's fine, it wouldn't be mine either, but don't condemn someone if that is their choice. Show a little compassion even if your "God" wouldn't.
And here i THought those pills didn't actually work. Youd think theyd be more dangerous.
Honestly, I do not think I would want to be born to this mother anyways. Seems like it would have been a sad life.
When are we going to wake up and take a look at the effect of exhaust fumes...if your driving your killing me...the trees that make the air we breathe, your kids, and grandkids...future generations. So how how does it feel to be both a hypocrite and a murderer...unworthy of being saved by anybodys God? Abortions an issue...but big oil is Not?
"Unmarried, Unemployed Mother of Three." That says it All. Keep your legs together or Put a cork in it woman. If man doesn't legislate Morality, man will legislate Immorality.
How 'bout "keep it in your pants"?
Lame colloquialisms work both ways.
The reichwing is against the government interfering in our lives unless you want an abortion or want to marry a gay person and then they are all for government interference in someone elses life...
When will all of these mean spirited old white people kick off and let our nation move on?
Another battle in the war against women.
Still again the conversation is all about the women. Where is the personal responsibility of the men. Women do not become pregnant by themselves. When will we put the responsibility on the gender who continually is seeking and pressuring women into sex. Maybe we would not need to have abortions if we as a society actively sought to prevent pregnancies in the first place. Not only should birth control be easily available but we need to challenge the mindset of men who seem to think it's their right to have sex without bothering to see the consequences of their behavior. They don't bother trying not to impregnate because they have no consequences. Much easier to legislate women's behaviors than to make men responsible.
This woman's case highlights the question of--- okay, you're not going to allow abortion (you being the very conservative, Judea-Christian, right wing, died in the wool fanatic)-- Say that women now are having unwanted babies-- 9 months of their lives that are being stripped from them not by their will but by someone else's will, possibly out of work, denied health coverage b/c they aren't working, or if they are working and they have coverage (thank goodness), they now give birth. An unwanted baby-- a life -- Life for an unwanted child isn't always honky dory. Not all babies are adopted. Heaven forbid if the baby has health problems. What then? The "right wing" government officials going to allocate funds for orphanages now? And what about low income women? Low income families who bring another child into the world that they might not be able to take care of? Or if they do take the baby--is there going to be funds to provide for it's well being? Personally, I feel this is one of the hardest decisions a woman has to make. A personal decision that only the woman who is pregnant can make, and unless she is incapacitated in some way, no one else should be making the decision for her. To quote the phrase used earlier'' Her body- her decision- Her right.
I can't believe in this day and age a woman can't just up and get an abortion when she gets pregnant. I mean, jeez, any woman can spontaneously get pregnant, at any time, through no action of her own! There is NOTHING she can do to prevent getting pregnant in the first place! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! NOT HAVING SEX is NOT an option!!
THEREFORE, it's ONLY FAIR that she be allowed to murder a child.
dog, apt moniker,its called a foetus, zygote, not a child until viable outside the womb. Not murder, abortion is still the law of the land and a very personal decision.
Obama 2012
Why on earth did she wait so long to determine she wanted an abortion?! She was too late, her only option was to have that baby and give it someone who could have cared for it. It's no ones fault but hers that she waited until it was illegal. Abortions are expensive, contraception is not. I am pro choice, but this woman was an idiot.
Don't know, don't care, her business.
Obama 2012
Ummm...I agree as a woman it is my body my choice, and I believe religion should stay out of it. As a woman I have two beautiful children 18 and 11. I don't want another child I use BIRTH CONTROL!, and the person I choose to have sexual intercourse with wears a condom or he doesn't get any. If he respects me , he'll wear one. I have also taught my children this wisdom. Prevention of pregnancy first! I understand however in causes of incest and rape, their was no choice to get pregnant and was not the fault of the victims I could not place blame if they choose abortion.
To answer the #1 contributor, it may be her body but it IS my business since I am paying for her. She is mother of 3, unemployed getting money from govt and the only thing she can do is open her legs and get pregnant. She should have been sterilized if she wanted to continue to have relations with god knows what. Let her get the abortion, I do not care - at least I am not paying for a 4th one.
My question is...WHY did she have to wait until she was almost FIVE MONTHS pregnant before she decided to terminate her pregnancy??? At that stage of her pregnancy, she was aborting a baby!!! I agree a woman should have the right to choose, but I also feel there should be a window of time (less than 3 months) in which to decide.
Just a simple moderate republican for "Pro Choice". I am not very religious either. I am not an Athiest, but this is my only problem with my party's platform. I am a swing voter. I love this country and have proudly served America. And no I will not be voting for obama, because his agenda is not what America needs or desires. Why did MSNBC name this woman. If anything happens to her from the nut job's on the left and right, they should be held accountable. And not by this chicken @!$%# of a president or justice department. But by good old vigilant justice.
Because it was in public information for court proceedings.
Obama 2012
I think what impresses me most with this whole topic is the position of men. They are judge and jury for women. Supposedly it takes a man and a woman to create life. However, men today don't seem to think so. They never admit to being participants in sexual acts only being judges of them.
If a woman is being held liable for abortion prosecution, so then is her partner. All men who have had intercourse with a woman being accused of prohibited practices, will be required to have a vasectomy. And this should be the law of the land.
If you participate in the deed, you help pay for the off-spring and be a father as well. Where abortion rights are concerned, if the woman is held liable the man has a vasectomy.