Supreme Court Stops Biden

( – Life always finds a way, and this time, the Supreme Court has recently decided to let Idaho’s law, which bans abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, take effect.

This move comes amidst challenges from the Biden administration, which is advocating for emergency room doctors to perform abortions under certain circumstances based on its interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA).

This legal contention arose after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leading the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to issue guidance on EMTALA. According to this guidance, doctors are required to perform abortions in emergency rooms when it’s deemed necessary for stabilizing a medical emergency. Non-compliant hospitals risk losing funding and Medicaid participation eligibility.

The Biden administration sued Idaho over its pro-life law following this HHS guidance, alleging non-compliance with EMTALA. Although a district court initially blocked Idaho’s law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed this order, only to vacate it later for en banc review. Idaho then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Idaho’s stance is that EMTALA was originally intended to prevent patient dumping rather than mandating abortions. The state argues that the law requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care for pregnant women and their unborn babies in emergencies, without explicitly mentioning abortion.

The U.S. is arguing that Idaho’s law is more restrictive than EMTALA, which aims to protect patients from not just imminent death but also serious health threats. Therefore, the U.S. posits that Idaho’s law criminalizes care required by federal law.

This Supreme Court decision follows the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocking the HHS EMTALA guidance in Texas, where the court ruled that EMTALA does not mandate specific medical treatments, including abortions.

President Biden criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to let Idaho’s law take effect, arguing that it denies women critical emergency abortion care and jeopardizes their health. He emphasized the need for Congressional action to restore Roe v. Wade protections.

In contrast, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, asserting that the federal government has been mistaken from the start and that both federal law and Idaho’s law aim to save lives. He described the decision as a significant step against the administration’s overreach and reflective of Idaho’s stance on the issue of life.