CV NEWS FEED // The Biden Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attacks on pro-life laws have moved to Idaho.
Moyle v US, the latest abortion case to reach the Supreme Court, asks whether federal laws preempt states’ rights to regulate abortion care.
Backstory
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance stating that hospitals that receive Medicare funding must provide emergency abortions as “necessary stabilizing treatment” to mothers under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
“Under the law, no matter where you live, women have the right to emergency care — including abortion care,” said self-identified Catholic HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “Today, in no uncertain terms, we are reinforcing that we expect providers to continue offering these services, and that federal law preempts state abortion bans when needed for emergency care.
Idaho challenged the guidelines, and Moyle v US now awaits the ruling of the Supreme Court.
What is the law at stake?
Idaho’s abortion laws are among the most pro-life in America, setting the state squarely in the cross-hairs of pro-abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood.
Idaho state laws regarding abortion and medical care center around the Defense of Life Act. This bill forbids all abortions unless medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
Critics estimate that the rate of abortions in Idaho fell by 48% between April 2022 and August 2022, when the law went into effect.
The law includes certain exceptions and puts the burden of proof that an abortion was “necessary” on the doctor in charge. Physicians must determine in “good faith and good judgment” that “the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”
The law also states a physician’s actions around abortion care should focus on “the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in his good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would have posed a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman.”
There are also provisions in the law that abortions may be conducted on victims of rape or incest within the first trimester so long as the pregnant woman “reported to a law enforcement agency that she is the victim of an act of rape or incest and provided a copy of such report to the physician who is to perform the abortion.”
According to Idaho law, the accidental death of an unborn child due to medical intervention – such as in treatment for an ectopic pregnancy – does not violate the law.
What is EMTALA?
The Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act was passed in 1986 and designed so that no public hospital receiving federal funds could turn away patients experiencing a medical emergency based on their ability to pay.
Concerning the treatment of pregnant women, the act highlights the obligation to “stabilize” pregnant women with “emergency conditions.”
Emergency conditions in the provision are interpreted to include when the absence of medical treatment “could reasonably be expected” to (1) place “the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,” (2) cause “serious impairment to bodily functions,” or (3) cause “serious dysfunction” of an organ or body part.
EMTALA does specifically cite abortion as a standard of care in hospital settings to remedy emergency conditions for pregnant women.
The Case
The Biden administration alleges that Idaho’s law violates EMTALA’s protections for emergency medical treatment. This, they claim, makes it impossible for hospitals and physicians to receive federal funding if they are following state law in Idaho.
The administration also argues that abortions should be considered as standard emergency treatment.
Idaho’s House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-ID, argued in response that there is no area in which the state law directly conflicts with EMTALA and that “unlike EMTALA, Congress has explicitly mentioned abortion in other federal laws when it expressly intended to regulate abortion. Moyle also contends that Congress has generally forbade using federal funds to pay for abortions.”
Cornell Law School notes of Moyle’s position: “Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, like EMTALA, allows abortion to prevent death while providing the best opportunity for the child to survive.”
The Biden administration’s argument is “that EMTALA’s preemption clause grants authority to overrule state law. The United States further asserts that EMTALA preempts state law that “directly” conflicts with it, and therefore the only laws that EMTALA does not preempt function state laws stricter than EMTALA.”
What does it mean?
The case hinges on whether or not the federal government can regulate abortion healthcare by expanding government reach and the application of EMTALA.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the DOJ, the way that states regulate abortion treatment and healthcare would be radicalized as a way to undermine the previous decision of Dobbs v. Jackson which famously overturned Roe v. Wade.
The outcome of the case could also affect how federal funds are spent with monies potentially funding abortions in public hospitals.
