U.S. judge blocks Idaho abortion ban in emergencies

Record ID: 1686201

  • Title: U.S. judge blocks Idaho abortion ban in emergencies
  • Date: 25th August 2022
  • Summary: BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES (AUGUST 24, 2022) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) NICOLE HUBERFELD, EDWARD R. UTLEY PROFESSOR OF HEALTH LAW AT BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE SCHOOL OF LAW, SAYING: "If the medical emergency is a rapidly developing cancer and that person must have treatment to live, then that's the medical emergency is treating the cancer and the pregnancy would have to be secondary to the treatment. Some people can be treated for different kind of medical conditions during their pregnancy perfectly safely without jeopardizing the pregnancy. So that's why I say it really depends on the circumstances. And this is why I believe the Biden administration is saying this is something that needs to stay in the hands of health care providers because they're the ones who will know whether something is, medically speaking, an emergency or not."
  • Embargoed: 8th September 2022 05:46
  • Keywords: Dobbs EMTALA Huberfeld Idaho abortion
  • Location: VARIOUS
  • City: VARIOUS
  • Country: USA
  • Topics: Crime/Law/Justice,Judicial Process/Court Cases/Court Decisions,United States
  • Reuters ID: LVA008049724082022RP1
  • Aspect Ratio: 16:9
  • Story Text: A federal judge on Wednesday (August 24) blocked Idaho from enforcing an abortion ban when pregnant women require emergency care, in what one legal health expert called “a warning to states not to go overboard for political purposes.”
    In Idaho, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice that the state’s abortion “trigger” ban taking effect Thursday (August 25) conflicts with a federal law that ensures patients can receive emergency "stabilizing care" at hospitals.
    The Justice Department argued that the 1986 federal law known as EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) requires that all hospitals that receive Medicare money from the federal government provide “stabilizing care” to all patients, including patients not receiving Medicare, even if that care is an abortion. Medicare is a widely-used federal program that provides health insurance for the elderly and disabled.
    Winmill, an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho from enforcing its ban to the extent it conflicts with federal law, citing the threat to patients.
    Boston University Professor of Law and Health Law Nicole Huberfeld said the ruling protects physicians from criminal prosecution for performing an abortion if a patient has an emergency medical condition.
    “If a physician has to perform an abortion because there’s an emergency medical condition that requires it, EMTALA would prevent the Idaho law from kicking into effect and giving authority to the state to prosecute that physician,” she said.
    While EMTALA specifically states that in cases where state and federal law conflict, EMTALA will rule, Huberfeld said that its use in this case is a novel approach by the federal government.
    “I don’t think it is an inappropriate reading of EMTALA; after all, the statute does have an express preemption provision. But to expressly state this is how we will interpret state laws is a bit of a warning to states not to go overboard for political purposes,” she said. “The Biden administration is seizing on that statutory language, and they’re saying a medical emergency should be defined by medical standards of care, not by state legislators who don’t necessarily have any medical expertise at all. And the medical standard of care for a pregnant person should be decided by the treating physician.”
    The Idaho ruling comes one day after a judge in Texas ruled against President Joe Biden's administration on the same issue.
    Late Tuesday (August 23), U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled said the federal government went too far by issuing guidance holding the same federal law guaranteed abortion care.
    Hendrix, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump, said the federal statute was silent as to what a doctor should do when there is a conflict between the health of the mother and the unborn child and that Texas's law "fills that void."
    Appeals are expected in both cases and would be heard by separate appeals courts, one based in San Francisco with a reputation for leaning liberal and another in New Orleans known for conservative rulings.
    The cases are two of the first lawsuits over the Democratic administration's attempts to ease abortion access after the conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized the procedure nationwide.
    About half of all U.S. states have or are expected to seek to ban or curtail abortions following Roe's reversal. Those states include Idaho and Texas, which like 11 others adopted "trigger" laws banning abortion upon such a decision.
    Huberfeld said Congress needs to pass federal legislation to protect physicians from criminal prosecution for providing abortions.
    “There are plenty of examples from countries like Poland and Mexico where abortion is outlawed except to save the life of the pregnant woman, that demonstrate that women will die in greater numbers if that’s the only exception for abortion, because physicians are afraid to act and they’re afraid because they don’t know if they’ll be prosecuted,” she said. “So Congress needs to do some work... Physicians in abortion restrictive states are going to have a pretty steep hill to climb because I think every day they’re finding more situations that are not necessarily emergency medical conditions, but conditions that require addressing, that could lead to severe health complications, that could lead to death, that they dont’ know if they can treat them or not without jeopardizing their own licensure.”
    Legal experts said the two state rulings - if upheld on appeal - could force the Supreme Court to wade back into the debate.
    “I think that having the imprimatur of a federal court would be important here,” said Huberfeld, “because there are state attorneys general who have sort of made a career on challenging federal power. And this would be an important signal. But it doesn’t mean there won’t be another federal court that doesn’t hold differently, setting up a conflict that could make its way to the Supreme Court all over again."
    (Producer: Arlene Eiras)
  • Copyright Holder: REUTERS
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2022. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register