The Supreme Court of the United States reinstated a pause on Idaho’s Pro-Life law while the case continues in lower courts. We are disappointed in the justices’ decision but remain hopeful for a Pro-Life ruling as the lawsuit proceeds.
Today’s outcome is being interpreted as a victory for Joe Biden, who sued the state of Idaho and announced he would hold hospitals’ Medicaid funds hostage unless they perform abortions. The ruling is not final but will temporarily permit doctors in Idaho to abort children even when the mother’s physical life is not in danger.
Idaho’s law protects preborn babies from abortion beginning at fertilization, with narrow exceptions for medical emergencies that threaten the mother’s life, and cases of rape and incest. The Biden administration claimed that Idaho’s medical emergency exception violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which they argued permits abortions in cases when the mother’s health is in jeopardy, even if the condition is not life-threatening.
Story continues below.
The opinion will block the Idaho law while litigation resumes in the lower courts, which means abortion will be expanded beyond those narrow exceptions. Supreme Court justices could revisit this matter after lower judges gather more data regarding the merits of the case.
Justice Barrett wrote that the court needs more information because “the shape of these cases has substantially shifted” since the Supreme Court became involved, with Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts concurring. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented from the order and would have ruled in favor of Idaho now rather than sending the case back to the lower court. Meanwhile, the three liberal justices, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, wrote that the court should have ruled in favor of the Biden administration now rather than requesting more information.
In his dissent, Alito argued:
“Far from requiring hospitals to perform abortions, EMTALA’s text unambiguously demands that Medicare-funded hospitals protect the health of both a pregnant woman and her ‘unborn child.’ And even if there were some ambiguity in the statutory text, we would be obligated to resolve that ambiguity in favor of the State because EMTALA was enacted under the Spending Clause, and as we have held time and again, conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds must be unambiguous.”
If the court ruled in favor of Idaho, the decision would not have prevented hospitals from treating women in these tragic circumstances. Idaho physicians were already authorized to use their good faith medical judgment to determine the necessity of a life-saving intervention for the pregnant woman, such as an induction or C-section.
Story continues below.
Don’t miss important Pro-Life stories like this.
>> Get the Pro-Life Weekly Highlight just once a week:
Texas Right to Life President Dr. John Seago added:
“The ultimate purpose of Pro-Life policies in Texas and across the country is to save lives. We have the obligation to closely examine our laws and how they are being understood by medical experts to ensure that measures intended to protect life are not consequently endangering them. We commend the justices who want to thoroughly analyze the issue by continuing the case. The reality is that a Pro-Life state can protect both preborn children from the violence of abortion and their mothers who face medical emergencies. We believe Pro-Lifers in Idaho will accomplish this critical balance without Biden’s pro-abortion activism.”
EMTALA requires emergency rooms to stabilize all patients who come through their doors, and actually urges physicians to treat both the pregnant mother and her preborn child. The Biden administration sought to push abortion as the “necessary stabilizing treatment” for women experiencing pregnancy-related medical emergencies. This would force hospitals to perform abortions, even when the mother’s life is not at risk, or lose Medicaid funding under Joe Biden.
Texas Right to Life continues to call for medical associations and state agencies to provide guidance and clarification to health professionals so Texas and other states can protect all preborn children without putting their mothers’ lives at risk.
Thank you for reading this story! If you support our Pro-Life ministry, chip in with a life-saving contribution today!
