We got a press release today with a subject line that I suppose, in this day and age, we should be happy about:

U.S. Court of Appeals protects women from prosecution after abortion

...but I hadn't heard about the insane case it involves, and it makes a person feel goddamned crazy.

...In the fall of 2010, Ms. McCormack became pregnant. Unemployed and already a mother of three, she sought an abortion, but there were no providers in southeast Idaho; the closest provider was in Utah. Because Ms. McCormack could not afford the costs of travel and a surgical procedure, she terminated her pregnancy through a medical abortion, using pills obtained over the internet.

Ms. McCormack was subsequently charged under an Idaho statute that makes it a felony for a pregnant woman – not a third party, such as a health care provider—to terminate her own pregnancy in a manner inconsistent with the state’s abortion statutes...

The women’s legal advocacy group that sent the release is "thrilled" that the court has come down on the right side of this nuttiness. I get it. But I'd be much, much more thrilled if this shit wasn't happening in the first place.

Full press release after the jump.

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a strong ruling protecting pregnant women and their choices in the case McCormack v. Hiedeman. In the first decision of its kind, the Court affirmed the trial court’s preliminary injunction preventing the state from using Idaho’s criminal abortion statutes to prosecute a woman for seeking abortion care, finding her constitutional challenge was likely to succeed on the merits.

The decision was hailed by Legal Voice and National Advocates for Pregnant Women, who along with the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Jennie McCormack. Kathleen O’Sullivan, Breena Roos, and Ashley Locke of the law firm Perkins Coie filed the amicus brief on behalf of the organizations.
In the fall of 2010, Ms. McCormack became pregnant. Unemployed and already a mother of three, she sought an abortion, but there were no providers in southeast Idaho; the closest provider was in Utah. Because Ms. McCormack could not afford the costs of travel and a surgical procedure, she terminated her pregnancy through a medical abortion, using pills obtained over the internet.
Ms. McCormack was subsequently charged under an Idaho statute that makes it a felony for a pregnant woman – not a third party, such as a health care provider – to terminate her own pregnancy in a manner inconsistent with the state’s abortion statutes.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Idaho abortion statute “constitutes a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion.” The court took pains to acknowledge the barriers that women - especially low-income women - face in obtaining abortion services, including lack of providers, financial obstacles, and harassment at clinics. Notably, the decision also acknowledges the practical realities of Ms. McCormack’s life.

“We are thrilled by the Ninth Circuit’s unequivocal statement that statutes that make it a crime for women to seek abortion care pose an undue burden on their ability to terminate their pregnancies,” said Janet Chung, attorney for Legal Voice, a women’s legal advocacy group that filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Ms. McCormack.

"This is an important decision that explicitly rejects Idaho's claim that the state may use its criminal abortion laws to punish pregnant women who end their pregnancies," said Lynn Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women. She added, "Leading ‘pro-life’ organizations have repeated claimed that their efforts will not result in women going to jail, yet none opposed the arrest of Ms. McCormack."