Federal Judge Lynn Winmill issued a ruling earlier this week in a lawsuit brought by St. Lukes’ Dr. Stacy Seyb. The lawsuit seeks to find a federal constitutional right to perform health abortions.
Judge Winmill once again ruled in favor of the Abortion Industry, finding that the lawsuit had merit. This must be about the 1000th time that Winmill has ruled in favor of abortion; his record over the past several decades remains hauntingly consistent. In his years on the bench, he has NEVER issued a ruling favoring preborn babies or mothers.
In this latest example of his gross bias, Winmill found that Dr. Seyb had a right to a civil trial, despite an astonishing admission by the doctor that he had never actually read the law he is challenging. Seyb also admitted, under oath, that St. Lukes does not provide training to medical staff on the Defense of Life Act or the application of that law provided by Idaho’s Supreme Court.
Rumors are that Winmill wants to stage a show trial for later this year, in hopes of boosting the “Abortion Always” ballot measure that Planned Parenthood and friends are pushing to get before voters in this year’s General Election.
But Winmill’s obstinance goes beyond that. He is a highly educated and skilled jurist. Appointed by Bill Clinton, he is a product of Harvard Law School where he was radicalized into believing that the U.S. Constitution really did protect a woman’s “right” to kill her own child. And he has been fighting for this dark principle throughout his time on the bench.
In glossing over the fact that a plaintiff was suing the State over a law he (Dr. Seyb) had not even bothered to read … Winmill went on to make a superficially reasonable claim about his personal belief that the 14th Amendment ensures a woman’s right to kill her child if her health is threatened:
“Idaho could not make a mother undergo a bone marrow transplant to save her child,” Winmill opines. “Can it require a pregnant woman to give up her ovaries or her kidneys in the hopes of saving a fetus?”
One must admit there is a shallow logic to his claim. Until one digs in a bit deeper.
Undoubtedly, the State of Idaho could not compel a mother to participate in a bone marrow donation – even though it would save the life of her 10 year old son. And even if the procedure represents virtually no threat to the mother’s life or even health.
In a civilized society, however, one hopes that a mother would gladly undergo such inconvenience and momentary discomfort to save her own child. But one cannot compel love by force of law.
But then notice the subtle shift in Winmill’s analogy: He claims, by way of analogy, that the State must therefore allow the death of this child if Dr. Seyb subjectively believes it is necessary to save the woman’s ovaries.
Obviously, all parties to Winmill’s thought experiment are not equal. In fact, the only way Winmill’s analogy is even to be entertained in polite society is to assume that the “fetus” in jeopardy is of little or no value. Certainly not a human being. And not even of value equal to a woman’s ovaries or kidney.
Consider this rephrasing of Winmill’s statement:
“Can Idaho require the sacrifice of a ten year old girl in the hopes of saving her mother’s ovaries?”
Such a claim would leave most reasonable aghast at the notion of sacrificing a living, healthy child to accommodate the health needs of another person. (This is the same source of outrage most people experience when reading about the Chinese trade in forced organ harvesting).
It would seem obvious that the State of Idaho has no legal or moral authority to condemn an innocent child to death for the benefit of another. And certainly, Judge Winmill has no such legitimate power, delusions of grandeur notwithstanding.
It is further plain that Judge Winmill does not have the ability to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs – that abortion is a matter for the states to decide; and that there is no “right” to an abortion under the unambiguous language of the Constitution. Nevertheless, Winmill’s radical ideology drives him to defy the Supreme Court once more.
Eventually, this 73 year old will actually go away. And when he does, it would be a travesty if Planned Parenthood does not fete him with a grand banquet and bestow upon him a lifetime achievement award. Beyond doubt, he continues to earn it. Perhaps the plaque will provide solace when he is held to account by his Creator.
Leave a comment