The Idaho Statesman ran a front-page story yesterday on a big case now before Idaho’s federal judge, Lynn Winmill. It involves the tragic abuse of parental authority by Boise City police, St. Luke’s and officials at the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare.

In 2002, the Mueller family brought their sick newborn baby girl to the emergency room because she was running a fever. Doctors recommended a spinal tap on the infant to check for meningitis. The Muellers declined the recommendation – knowing that odds were less than 5% that the baby was suffering from that disease. They were concerned about the potential side-effects of the procedure and told doctors they wanted other options.

But we live in an era of growing medical arrogance. Too many in the medical profession have confused their role because of a lack of spiritual humility.

In any event – in this case, doctors called in Health & Welfare officials who seized the infant from the parents. They performed the spinal tap and found nothing. But days passed before the little baby was returned to her parents.

The Muellers filed suit in federal court.

In relating the story, the Idaho Statesman characterizes Judge Winmill as a champion for parental rights. More particularly, the paper says that Winmill “determined the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of parents to make almost all medical decisions for their children.”

On the basis of what we know about this horrible case – Judge Winmill has pronounced a just result. He is probably due a great deal of credit for striking a counterblow on behalf of parents.

But the story is loaded with irony. This is the same federal judge who overstepped his authority to ensure that Idaho’s Parental Consent was blocked from being enforced for the past three years.

According to this same federal judge – it is “unconstitutional” for parents to be told after an emergency abortion that their daughter is suffering from a physical condition so serious that an abortionist had to immediately kill their grandchild. Who cares whether the girl needs follow-up medical care? She’s just collateral damage in the war to protect the abortion option.

Winmill has also ruled that it is “unconstitutional” for state judges to report suspected cases of sexual abuse when dealing with girls in a judicial bypass setting. Such a report, Winmill says, “might have a chilling effect” on a girl’s “right” to commit abortion. Apparently Winmill’s version of the Constitution requires us to turn our backs on girls suffering from physical and sexual abuse at home – at least if defending that girl would somehow threaten the “sacred right” of abortion.

Of course, it is impossible to know what is in Judge Winmill’s heart as he wrestles with these various questions involving an ever-encroaching government and medical bureaucracy. Still, we wonder aloud about his apparent inability to construct a coherent view of the U.S. Constitution and the natural parental rights which precede it.