A portion of Idaho’s abortion ban has been temporarily blocked after a federal judge found that it was in violation of a law that is meant to protect patients’ rights in medical emergencies.
This week, District Judge B. Lynn Winmill sided with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which sued Idaho over the enforcement of its abortion ban, contending that the law violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
The ruling does not block the enforcement of all of Idaho’s abortion restrictions. But it does grant added protections to people whose health may be negatively impacted by their pregnancy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade activated a trigger law in Idaho that bans abortion at every stage of pregnancy. The law makes exceptions in cases of rape or incest but requires patients to provide an affirmative defense proving they are victims. Idaho’s law is also more restrictive than other states when it comes to exceptions for medical emergencies. For the state to consider abortion a medical necessity, it is not enough for the pregnancy to present a serious health risk to the pregnant person; instead, doctors must prove that the pregnancy is life-threatening.
In June, following a directive from President Joe Biden, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said that pregnancies that cause physical harm are covered under EMTALA, regardless of whether or not that harm is life-threatening.
“A physician’s professional and legal duty to provide stabilizing medical treatment to a patient who… is found to have an emergency medical condition preempts any directly conflicting state law or mandate that might otherwise prohibit or prevent such treatment,” including in circumstances where “abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition,” the guidance states.
“Under the law, no matter where you live, women have the right to emergency care — including abortion care,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement after the guidance was released.
The DOJ sued Idaho on the premise that it was illegal for the abortion law to allow the procedure only in life-threatening medical emergencies. Winmill agreed with that notion, and placed a temporary injunction on that part of the state’s law until a further decision could be made.
“Allowing the criminal abortion ban to take effect, without a cutout for EMTALA-required care, would inject tremendous uncertainty into precisely what care is required (and permitted) for pregnant patients who present in Medicare-funded emergency rooms with emergency medical conditions,” Winmill said in his ruling, adding:
The clear and intended effect of Idaho’s criminal abortion law is to curb abortion as a form of medical care. This extends to emergency situations, obstructing EMTALA’s purpose. Idaho’s choice to impose severe and sweeping sanctions that decrease the overall availability of emergency abortion care flies in the face of Congress’s deliberate decision to do the opposite.
The injunction blocks officials in Idaho “from initiating any criminal prosecution against, attempting to suspend or revoke the professional license of, or seeking to impose any other form of liability on, any medical provider or hospital,” if an abortion is considered necessary to avoid pregnancy-related harm to the health of a patient.
Federal judges elsewhere have ruled against EMTALA defenses put forward by the DOJ, including in Texas.
The DOJ is expected to appeal the Texas ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while Idaho is expected to appeal Winmill’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.