Pro-life groups praised the Trump administration's recent move to drop a Biden administration lawsuit against an Idaho law over what the government previously argued was a conflict between Idaho's abortion restrictions and federal law governing emergency health care.
Supporters of abortion restrictions passed by Idaho argued it made appropriate exceptions for emergency circumstances, while opponents argued the law runs afoul of federal requirements to provide stabilizing care to pregnant women experiencing adverse effects in emergency rooms.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, obligates doctors and hospitals to attempt to stabilize both mother and unborn child in an emergency. The Biden administration previously sought to use the 1986 emergency health care law to require hospitals to perform emergency abortions in states that have restricted abortion following the June 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the high court's previous abortion precedent.
But in March 5 court filings, the Justice Department moved to dismiss that suit.
But Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican, said March 7 he was "pleased" by the dismissal of "the previous administration's attack on Idaho's Defense of Life Act."
"I have been fighting against the Biden Administration's twisted interpretation of federal statutes to keep individual states from enacting pro-life laws for the last two years, and this dismissal is a welcome relief," he said.
In a March 5 statement, Katie Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, argued, "Idaho's Defense of Life Act protecting babies and their mothers throughout pregnancy was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2023."
"There is no conflict between Idaho's law and federal law, which never mentions abortion but specifically mentions several times that the 'unborn child' is also a patient any time a pregnant woman comes to the emergency room," Daniel said. "Idaho's law protects more than 1,500 babies a year, and like every pro-life law in the country, nothing in it stops pregnant women from receiving emergency medical care. This care is absolutely legal."
Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America, argued in a March 4 statement, "By withdrawing this case, Donald Trump and his DOJ have decided to let women die."
"Rather than protect our lives and freedoms, they are following the playbook of anti-abortion extremists," she said. "We are grateful to the state leaders who are fighting back on behalf of patients and their providers and will mobilize our millions of members to join them.”
Daniel added SBA List is encouraging "every pro-life state to adopt 'Med Ed' policies to make it crystal clear how doctors can use their medical judgment and comply with the law."
Dr. Ingrid Skop, a board-certified OB-GYN who has practiced in Texas and is a senior fellow and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said in a statement, "The administration's change in stance is welcome news for both of my patients -- a pregnant woman and her unborn child -- whose lives are both prioritized by EMTALA."
"This coercive effort by the prior administration to subvert existing laws to promote abortion was never necessary, as EMTALA has never been confusing for me or my obstetric peers," Skop said. "Every state pro-life law already permitted physicians to intervene immediately in a pregnancy emergency to protect a woman's life. Although I do not perform elective abortions, I have always been able to provide quality care in obstetric emergencies, seeking to preserve the lives of both mother and child.”
Supporters of what proponents call a medical education or "med ed" bill say they clarify exceptions to abortion restrictions, such as when doctors are permitted to intervene to save a pregnant woman's life, while opponents argue such bills are not sufficient to address confusion surrounding the ban.
The Catholic Church teaches that all human life is sacred from conception to natural death, and as such, opposes direct abortion.
After the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization in June 2022, church officials in the U.S. have reiterated the church's concern for both mother and child and called to strengthen available support for those living in poverty or other causes that could increase the likelihood of abortion.
