Hearn said in order for McCormack to have standing to fight all aspects of the law "she would have to be pregnant, want to get an abortion, and for some reason have to wait until after the 19 weeks."
He added, "Viability would begin three or four weeks after that, so it would be virtually impossible for a woman to challenge that statute."
So to bring the case in a way that would overturn the law and remove the threat of a five-year prison term looming over McCormack, they needed a doctor to intervene.
Convenient, then, that McCormack's lawyer was also an M.D. — albeit one who specialized in arthritis and kidney disease.
Hearn's intervention attempt is unheard of among legal experts contacted by The Associated Press.
Deputy Idaho Attorney General Clay Smith dismissed Hearn's move as merely an attempt to introduce issues that McCormack has no standing to present.
Hearn did not dispute that.
"I'm not trying to trick anybody or anything," he said.
Bill Horton, a legal ethics expert, says the case is unusual but doesn't seem to present a conflict of interest.
"This is like nothing that I've ever read about or encountered. But these abortion rights lawsuits tend to bring out unusual strategies sometimes."
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Reader Comments