Comment The Biden administration on Wednesday scored its first legal victory since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, persuading a judge to block the section of an Idaho law that criminalizes performing an abortion on a woman to protect her health. The law, which was set to take effect Thursday, bans abortions except in cases involving rape, incest or when a woman’s life is in danger — and does not include an exception for cases where a pregnant woman’s health is at risk. It would allow authorities to arrest a health care professional involved in an abortion, placing the burden on that person to prove in court that the abortion met the criteria for one of the exceptions. In a ruling late Wednesday, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said the statute violates a federal act that requires hospitals participating in the federally funded Medicare program to provide medical care when a person’s life or health is at risk. The “trigger” law was written by Idaho state lawmakers long before the Supreme Court struck it down Roe v. Wade in June, with the expectation that it will automatically come into effect immediately after the court issues this landmark decision. 1 in 3 American women have already lost access to an abortion. More restrictive laws are coming. Idaho may still have a strict abortion law. But by issuing a preliminary injunction, Winmill ruled that a doctor cannot be punished if he performs an abortion to protect the health of a pregnant patient. “This is not about the past constitutional right to abortion,” the judge’s ruling said. “This Court does not address that larger, deeper question. Instead, the Court is asked to address a much more modest issue—whether Idaho’s criminal abortion statute conflicts with a small but important corner of federal law. It does.” A spokesman for the Idaho attorney general did not immediately return a request for comment. The decision creates a potential conflict in the federal court system, with a Texas court ruling Tuesday that the federal statute in question does not require states to allow abortions in cases where it could protect the health of a pregnant patient. As many states pass increasingly strict abortion bans, legal experts expect litigation over the health exemption issue to continue, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. However, the substance of Idaho’s abortion law will remain intact, with the state continuing to ban abortions in most cases. The ruling’s narrow scope underscores how few legal tools the Biden administration has had to significantly shape abortion rights in the country since then Roe was repealed, overturning the right to terminate a pregnancy that had been enshrined in federal law for nearly 50 years. The Justice Department had no legal avenue to seek abortion access for all women in Idaho. Instead, the lawsuit aimed to protect access to abortion in extreme health crises and ensure that doctors could not be prosecuted for terminating pregnancies in these emergencies. Here’s the latest abortion law action across the United States Winmill, who was appointed to the federal seat in 1995 by President Bill Clinton, opened his hearing Monday morning by saying the Idaho case was limited in scope, involved only pregnancies that pose a significant health risk, and would not serve as a broad debate about whether abortion should be permitted in other cases. Justice Department lawyers based their interpretation on a 1986 law that has rarely been involved with abortion in court: the Emergency Medical Care and Active Labor Act. They say the law, known as EMTALA, requires hospitals that participate in the federally funded Medicare program to provide necessary, health-stabilizing treatment to all patients, even if that treatment is an abortion. Idaho accuses Justice Department of federal overreach after Supreme Court rules states can set their own abortion restrictions Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Winmill seemed skeptical Monday of Idaho attorneys’ arguments that in the “real world,” an Idaho attorney would never prosecute a doctor for performing an abortion on a terminally ill patient. “The concern is that real-world events are very difficult to predict, but the text of the law is very clear,” he said. On August 2, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Department of Justice would file a lawsuit against Idaho over its restrictive abortion law. (Video: The Washington Post) This Texas teenager wanted an abortion. Now she has twins. “As the District Court has held, a state law that attempts to prevent a hospital from fulfilling its obligations under EMTALA violates federal law and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Wednesday. night. “The Department of Justice will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend the reproductive rights protected by federal law.” While this is the first time the Biden administration has argued in court that EMTALA protects the right to an abortion in certain circumstances, the federal government last month tried to require hospitals that receive Medicare funds to perform abortions that would protect his health patient. In July, shortly after the Dobbs decision, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — the federal agency tasked with enforcing EMTALA — issued guidance to hospitals saying the law preempts any state law that prohibits abortion when health of a woman is in danger. The state of Texas, in response, sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, saying the guidance amounted to federal overreach. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Texas agreed, ruling that the requirements set forth in EMTALA do not conflict with the state’s strict abortion laws. Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, said he expects district courts across the country to be split on whether access to abortion in health emergencies is part of EMTALA. He said the public should expect many appeals in the coming months. “When EMTALA was enacted, did Congress intend to preempt state law prohibiting certain medical procedures? My point is absolutely,” Gostin said. “If EMTALA stands for anything, it means that any person in America, anywhere in America, can walk into an emergency department expecting that the doctors will do everything possible to save their life and prevent it from getting worse of their health”. From Roe was overturned, Justice Department officials and abortion rights advocates also weighed other legal strategies to protect abortion rights, including protecting women who travel to states where the procedures are legal and ensuring that people have access to pills that can cause abortions.
