The Trump administration on March 5 dropped a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration that sought to permit Idaho physicians to perform emergency abortions.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act forbids abortions except when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or during the first trimester when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. Performing an abortion outside of those restrictions can lead to five years in prison and result in the revocation of a medical doctor’s license.
The federal government’s closely watched lawsuit, known as United States v. Idaho, was filed in U.S. District Court in Idaho in August 2022.
The legal complaint was filed weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973). The court held that there was no right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, and returned the regulation of abortion to the states.
The Biden administration, which left office on Jan. 20, had taken the position that federal policy on emergency health care should prevail over state-level abortion restrictions.
The case was about whether the Idaho law conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which forbids so-called patient dumping, the practice of hospitals refusing emergency treatment to people who can’t afford to pay for medical services.
The Biden administration argued the Idaho law violates EMTALA, which requires that emergency room patients in hospitals that accept Medicare be provided stabilizing care. The previous administration argued stabilizing care included abortions and said that state-level abortion laws such as Idaho’s have confused patients and health care professionals and delayed critical care for pregnant women.
The Biden administration argued EMTALA requires hospitals in Idaho to provide emergency medical care, including abortions, to anyone who requests one.
The dismissal of the case could have nationwide implications because the Biden administration also said EMTALA took priority over state laws in other states with restrictive abortion laws.
However, the newly inaugurated Trump administration takes the view that states should be able to determine abortion policies on their own.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill, who presided over the case, played no role in the withdrawal of the lawsuit. The stipulation states that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the document is “self-executing” and approval of the court is not required.
The stipulation provides that the preliminary injunction that Winmill issued on Aug. 24, 2022, which allowed emergency abortions to be carried out in Idaho, is dissolved. At that time, Winmill ruled that the Idaho law partly conflicts with EMTALA.
Winmill said during a March 5 court hearing in Boise, in a related lawsuit brought by an Idaho hospital system, that the DOJ’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit constituted a “ticking time bomb” for the hospital system, which is seeking to allow its physicians to perform emergency abortions.
At that hearing, Brian Church, Idaho’s deputy attorney general, said, “There is no medical situation in which it is necessary to do an abortion as stabilizing care.”
In that related lawsuit, known as St. Luke’s Health System Ltd. v. Labrador, the judge issued a temporary restraining order on March 4 preventing Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador from enforcing the state law as to emergency abortions performed under EMTALA. The order states it will remain in effect until the court issues a decision on the hospital system’s request to upgrade the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction.
In the United States v. Idaho case, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in September 2023 reversed Winmill’s decision, finding that EMTALA and the state statute didn’t conflict, but two months later, the appeals court reinstated the judge’s order.
The full Ninth Circuit was preparing to rehear the case, but in January 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and granted Idaho’s request to lift the injunction, pending the outcome of the case at the high court.
The case remains pending at the Ninth Circuit.
The Epoch Times reached out to the DOJ and Labrador for comment. No replies were received by publication time.
