The Biden Administration's lawsuit against Idaho claims that the Defense of Life Act contradicts the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). Idaho's law protects unborn children from abortion with several exceptions, including when the abortion is deemed necessary to save the mother's life. EMTALA is a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for conditions jeopardizing an individual's health.
The 9th Circuit ruled in October that Idaho's Defense of Life Act prohibits medical treatment that is legally required by EMTALA. The Biden administration argued that EMTALA requires abortions in violation of the Defense of Life Act if an emergency room doctor thinks its appropriate, regardless of whether the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.
Attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Cooper & Kirk assisted the Idaho Attorney General's Office in filing the emergency motion.
“Hospitals—especially emergency rooms—are centers for preserving life. The government has no business transforming them into abortion clinics,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the Center for Life and Regulatory Practice. “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. We urge the Supreme Court to halt the lower court’s injunction and allow Idaho emergency rooms to fulfill their primary function—saving lives.”
Attorneys defending the Defense of Life Act in the emergency motion argue, “EMTALA is silent on abortion and actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.”
ADF attorneys are litigating a similar case against the Biden administration in defense of Texas's Heartbeat Act.
