The latest skirmish over Idaho’s 2020 Defense of Life Act has a new and potentially important wrinkle, brought about by the victory of Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, in a court document, the Trump Department of Justice said it plans to dismiss its lawsuit—“dismiss its claims” — against the state of Idaho, reversing the position taken by the Biden Department of Justice in 2022.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
The pro-abortion Biden administration sued the state, arguing that Idaho powerful pro-life law is in conflict with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat patients who come to an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay. It was supported in a friend-of-the-court brief by St. Luke’s Health System, Idaho’s largest hospital network.
The Biden Department of Justice claimed it could use EMTALA and “pay private hospitals to violate Idaho’s protections for life,” Alliance Defending Freedom maintains. “But as Idaho explains, the federal government cannot use its Spending Clause power to pay private parties to circumvent state law.”
The state further maintains that the Justice Department is overreaching when it asserts that the law could require the provision of abortion, pointing to EMTALA’s references to “unborn child” when an emergency patient is pregnant.
“The purpose of this law is to save lives, not to take them,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador bluntly wrote.
Tweet This: The purpose of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is to save lives, not to take them.
Added John Bursch, a senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, “I don’t think Congress, when they enacted EMTALA, or President Reagan when he signed it into law, anticipated an interpretation that required the child’s life to be taken.”
To be clear, “The state argued that its law does allow life-saving abortions and the Biden administration wrongly sought to expand the exceptions,” according to the Associated Press’ Lindsay Whitehurst and Rebecca Bone. “The state agrees with the dismissal, so it does not need judicial approval, Justice Department attorneys wrote in court documents.”
Anticipating the change with a new administration, St. Luke’s filed a separate lawsuit in January. Yesterday, Wendy Olson, lead attorney for St. Luke’s, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order which was granted later in the day by the always accommodating U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Bill Clinton appointee.
He will “proceed to consider a new preliminary injunction” today, Kelcie Moseley-Morris reported. “While a restraining order would typically only last until the hearing date, Winmill wrote that the court will keep it in place for longer in this instance.”
“(This) will allow the court time to fully consider the arguments offered at the hearing.”
Responding to Olson’s motion, Dan Estes, spokesperson for Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, told Moseley-Morris St. Luke’s request was a “brazen attempt to declare that (the hospital) is above the law.”
Last year, the Supreme Court decided it was premature to rule on the case. The case was returned to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court appeals which heard arguments in December.
A ruling from a panel of judges is pending.
Editor's note: This article was published by National Right to Life News and is reprinted with permission.
