The Supreme Court is weighing Idaho’s abortion ban against the federal emergency health care law

The Supreme Court on April 24 weighed a potential conflict between Idaho’s abortion restrictions and the federal law governing emergency health care.

Supporters of the Idaho law argued that appropriate exceptions are made for emergency situations, while opponents argued that the law violates federal requirements to provide stabilizing care to pregnant women who are adversely affected in emergency rooms.

The federal law in question, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires doctors and hospitals to attempt to stabilize both the mother and unborn child in the event of an emergency.

During oral arguments, justices from the court’s perceived liberal wing appeared to support the Biden administration’s argument that federal law would supersede state law, while conservative justices appeared more skeptical of a conflict between them.

Noting the presence of the term “unborn child” in the EMTALA statute, Justice Samuel Alito asked, “Isn’t that an odd phrase to include in a statute that mandates abortions be performed?”

But Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that there is a conflict between Idaho law and EMTALA, suggesting that the former makes provision for potential maternal deaths but not for other adverse consequences.

“In Idaho, doctors must turn a blind eye to everything but death,” Prelogar said. “Whereas under EMTALA you’re supposed to think about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility?’ Will her uterus become incredibly scarred from the bleeding? Is she about to face the possibility of kidney failure? ”

The Biden administration has sought to use the 1986 Emergency Health Care Act to require hospitals to perform emergency abortions in states that have restricted abortions following the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the earlier overturned the Supreme Court’s abortion precedent.

The government has argued that doctors must perform abortions when a woman’s life is at risk from the pregnancy under EMTALA, while others argue that the law requires stabilizing care to be administered to both the mother and unborn child, depending on gestational age.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said in a statement that the Biden administration’s “radical interpretation of federal law is nothing more than a lawless disregard for Idaho’s right to protect life.”

“Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is entirely consistent with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which provides explicit protections for ‘unborn children’ in four separate places,” Labrador said. “But the Biden administration is trying to use one life-affirming law to invalidate another.”

In a statement ahead of oral arguments, Leo Morales, executive director of the ACLU of Idaho, said regarding the amicus brief his group filed: “We see that banning abortion in Idaho will easily score political points in a state known stands for its tolerance. of far-right extremists has devastating consequences for the healthcare system and pregnant patients.”

“We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court can recognize the severity this decision will have on all Idahoans, and urge the Court to recognize federal law that protects the rights of all individuals to emergency treatment,” said Morales.

But Dr. Ingrid Skop, a board-certified gynecologist and senior fellow and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said in an April 24 statement: “I have practiced under EMTALA throughout my 30-year career. The law has never been confusing to me and my midwifery colleagues, as it calls for the protection of the health of both mothers and their unborn children.”

Skop added that the Charlotte Lozier Institute’s amicus brief in the Supreme Court case outlines that position.

“Like about 90% of obstetricians, I do not perform abortions, yet I have always been willing and able to intervene when a pregnancy emergency endangered my patient’s life,” she said. “Every pro-life law allows a doctor to use his or her medical judgment to determine how to protect a mother’s life in an emergency. Any attempt to use federal law to force doctors to perform abortions is not only unnecessary and coercive, but also distracts them from their oath to do no harm.”