WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — The conservative western state of Idaho last week filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court after a lower court agreed with the Biden administration that the state must allow abortions under certain circumstances.
Represented by attorneys with Cooper & Kirk and pro-life legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Idaho filed an emergency application for a stay pending appeal, asking the nation’s highest court to block a ruling against its pro-life law by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The motion asks the nation’s high court to immediately halt the 9th Circuit’s ruling holding that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts Idaho’s Defense of Life Act,” the ADF said in a Nov. 20 press release.
Idaho lawmakers passed the Defense of Life Act as a “trigger law” in 2020 to immediately ban most abortions if the Supreme Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade.
After the landmark Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson in June 2022 that overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Idaho’s trigger law kicked in, prohibiting abortion at any state of gestation with exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Pro-lifers point out that the deliberate killing of a preborn baby is morally unjustifiable and never medically necessary.
Abortionists who violate Idaho’s law face punishments of up to five years in prison and the suspension of their medical licenses.
RELATED: Idaho Supreme Court allows state abortion ban to take effect
In the ADF’s statement, it said the 9th circuit court agreed with the Biden administration that a federal Medicare statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), “requires abortions in violation of this law if an emergency room doctor thinks it is appropriate,” an interpretation Idaho disputes.
Idaho Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the “premise” put forward by the Biden administration “is meritless” since abortion is notably absent from the language of the legislation, Bloomberg Law reported.
In the 117-page application to the U.S. Supreme Court, the attorneys representing Idaho declare that the EMTALA as written simply “requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients, regardless of their ability to pay,” and argue that the notion that the statute should supersede a pro-life law is a “novel view.”
“[A]fter Dobbs, the United States adopted the novel view that EMTALA creates a federal right to abortion in emergency rooms, even though EMTALA is silent on abortion and actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women,” the filing reads. “The United States’ position conflicts with the universal agreement of federal courts of appeals that EMTALA does not dictate a federal standard of care or displace state medical standards.”
ADF senior counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the Center for Life and regulatory practice, said in the Nov. 20 press release that “[h]ospitals — especially emergency rooms — are centers for preserving life. The government has no business transforming them into abortion clinics.”
“Emergency room physicians can, and do, treat ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. But elective abortion is not life-saving care — it ends the life of the unborn child — and the government has no authority to override Idaho’s law barring these procedures,” continued Hawley, who is the wife of Republican U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri.
“We urge the Supreme Court to halt the lower court’s injunction and allow Idaho emergency rooms to fulfill their primary function — saving lives,” she said.
The application for an emergency stay comes after the Biden administration sued Idaho in August 2022 after the rollback of Roe v. Wade in a bid to stop enforcement of Idaho’s pro-life legislation.
RELATED: Biden administration lawsuit challenges Idaho’s prohibition of most abortions
The Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which reinterpreted the EMTALA after the overthrow of Roe to include a requirement that emergency room doctors perform abortions, argued that the carveout for the mother’s life in the Idaho law was insufficient “because Idaho’s public record law doesn’t allow law enforcement agencies to release reports when a case is still under investigation — a process that generally takes weeks or months,” the Associated Press reported at the time.
“Under the Idaho law, once effective, any state or local prosecutor can subject a physician to indictment, arrest, and prosecution merely by showing that an abortion has been performed, without regard to the circumstances,” the lawsuit stated. “The law then puts the burden on the physician to prove an ‘affirmative defense’ at trial.”
Idaho Gov. Brad Little shot back at the Biden administration in an August 2, 2022 statement.
“Our nation’s highest court returned the issue of abortion to the states to regulate – end of story,” he said. “The U.S. Justice Department’s interference with Idaho’s pro-life law is another example of Biden overreaching yet again while he continues to ignore issues that really should demand his attention – like crushing inflation and the open border with Mexico.”
The Idaho lawsuit coincides with a similar case in Texas, in which the federal government has also attempted to use the EMTALA to require emergency room physicians to perform abortions. ADF attorneys are also litigating the case and the Catholic legal group Thomas More Society submitted an amicus brief in July. In August, a district court in the Lone Star State issued an order in favor of Texas against the Biden administration, allowing the state to continue enforcing its ban on abortions, including in emergency room settings.
“Trying to force a physician to take the life of an unborn child under a law that is expressly designed to save lives is not only contradictory but also ludicrous,” said Tyler Brooks, senior counsel with the Thomas More Society. “An elective abortion is an intentional choice to kill a preborn baby and emergency medical treatment is intended to preserve life. This act, as interpreted by the Biden Administration, violates the conscience rights of medical personnel who believe that abortion is immoral.”