The United States Supreme Court recently heard a case to decide whether Pro-Life Idaho, along with every other state across the nation, will have to transform its emergency rooms into abortion facilities.
The Biden Administration sued the state of Idaho, falsely claiming that Idaho’s laws block the necessary emergency care federal law requires. In reality, not one Pro-Life state prevents this life-saving care for pregnant women.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to anyone who presents at their emergency room, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Pro-Life President Ronald Reagan signed EMTALA into law in 1986 so that vulnerable patients, including pregnant mothers in labor and their preborn children, would receive essential care.
However, in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson, the anti-Life Biden Administration is attempting to weaponize the law to permit elective abortion in ERs in a broad range of circumstances beyond medical emergencies. Further, the Administration says that this law always preempts state law. This would turn every emergency department in the country, even those in Pro-Life states, into abortion clinics.
Texas sued the Biden Administration over its interpretation of EMTALA. A lower appeals court blocked Biden from reintroducing elective abortion into Texas in this way. But now, a similar question is before the highest court in the nation. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact Texas as well.
Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!
Josh Turner, Idaho’s attorney, argued that the state already allows what EMTALA on its face requires. The problem arises when the Biden Administration tries to modify the law’s intentions to require abortions, even when they are not necessary. Further, Biden’s interpretation ignores that the preborn child also counts as a patient.
In Idaho, as in every other Pro-Life state, no doctor has to wait until death is imminent in order to intervene when a pregnant woman’s life is threatened. Many of the justices questioned the Idaho attorney on how a doctor can safely determine whether abortion-like treatment would be necessary. Turner reiterated that the timeline does not matter, since the standard is based on the physician’s good-faith judgment of whether death is foreseeable in the pregnant woman’s case.
Turner also argued that EMTALA and federal preemption are not absolute — there are already instances where state law comes first over the blanket requirement for stabilization. For example, states by-and-large create laws regulating healthcare professionals and what they may do according to their job training. If a patient requires surgical treatment to be stabilized, but no surgeon is available, a nurse cannot conduct the surgery herself. EMTALA stabilization is already contingent on state law. But the new interpretation, and the idea of complete federal preemption, would seem to require nurses to perform surgeries in this scenario.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that Idaho was trying to block abortions in necessary cases. She suggested that it was too unclear to determine precisely when a patient would be considered at risk of death.
From the bench, Justice Sotomayor falsely claimed that Pro-Life states do not allow intervention when a pregnant woman’s life is at risk. This is not true — in EVERY Pro-Life state, doctors may provide Life-saving care for pregnant women, even if this care sometimes requires premature termination or delivery of the preborn child. Claims to the contrary confuse medical professionals and encourage harmful delays in care. The liberal justices strongly backed the idea that the federal law preempts state law.
The Supreme Court may protect Life and allow Idaho’s Pro-Life law to remain in effect, or they may rule the federal EMTALA law requires emergency rooms to commit abortion in non-emergent cases, which could be detrimental to Pro-Life laws across the country and Texas. We expect a decision in June. Stay tuned for updates on this case. …
LifeNews Note: Samantha Furnace writes for Texas Right to Life.
The post Supreme Court Should Stop Biden From Forcing pro-Life States to Allow Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.
The United States Supreme Court recently heard a case to decide whether Pro-Life Idaho, along with every other state across the nation, will have to transform its emergency rooms into abortion facilities. The Biden Administration sued the state of Idaho, falsely claiming that Idaho’s laws block the necessary emergency care federal law requires. In reality, […]
The post Supreme Court Should Stop Biden From Forcing pro-Life States to Allow Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.