Idaho is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let it enforce a near-total abortion ban while the state appeals a lower court ruling that the ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law.
In an emergency application posted Monday, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) asked the justices to overrule an injunction issued by a federal appeals court that prevents the state from prosecuting physicians who perform abortions in emergency circumstances but for reasons other than to “prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is a “trigger law” that took effect after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion.
The Biden administration sued, arguing the ban violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which they said protects providers who perform life- or health-saving abortion services in emergency situations.
Labrador said there is no conflict between federal and state law because the U.S. is using a flawed legal interpretation and is not likely to succeed on the merits.
"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,” Labrador wrote.
According to the state, EMTALA is “silent” on abortion and “does not require anything that Idaho law prohibits.”
EMTALA has been on the books for over 30 years as a way to prevent “dumping” of emergency patients who couldn’t pay for care. Under the law, hospitals must provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
In guidance issued last year, the administration said state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.
The administration’s lawsuit against Idaho argued EMTALA preempts the state law because there was no provision about protecting the health of the pregnant patient.
A district court ruled in favor of the administration and blocked the law. The state appealed, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lifted the injunction. But the full Ninth Circuit later reinstated it, blocking the state from enforcing the law.
The Supreme Court has asked the U.S. to respond by Nov. 30.
