We’re excited to share that Life Legal has just submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act—a law that prohibits abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother. This act came into being after the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which rightfully overturned Roe and its invented “right” to abortion.
But the fight to protect the unborn continues. The Biden-Harris Administration is aggressively working to dismantle state abortion restrictions passed post-Dobbs. One of its tactics? Misinterpreting the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). This law ensures that emergency room patients are treated regardless of their ability to pay—but now the administration wants to twist EMTALA to include abortion as “stabilizing treatment” for women whose health may be at risk, even though the law itself requires treatment—not termination—for unborn babies.
The Administration has sued Idaho, claiming its Defense of Life Act violates EMTALA because it does not allow abortion for the mother’s health. The government claims that federal law should override the state’s protections for the unborn.
Our amicus brief takes a strong stand, arguing that Idaho’s law doesn’t conflict with EMTALA. EMTALA never intended to require abortions—it was designed to protect both mother and child as individuals. As Justice Alito wisely pointed out, “It goes without saying that aborting an ‘unborn child’ does not protect it from jeopardy.”
We also remind the court that EMTALA is part of the Medicare Act, which expressly prohibits federal control over the practice of medicine—a power that has always belonged to the states. Idaho’s public hospitals, by the way, don’t accept federal Medicaid funds, so the Administration’s argument about EMTALA preemption doesn’t even apply!
If the government’s interpretation of EMTALA were allowed to stand, it could pave the way for federal control over highly controversial practices, like physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and even gender-transition surgeries.
Let’s not forget EMTALA’s original mission: preventing hospitals from turning away patients in need—not pushing for abortions. Even pro-life champions like Henry Hyde and President Reagan supported EMTALA because it was meant to save lives, not end them.
In short, the Administration’s attempt to weaponize EMTALA to undermine Idaho’s pro-life protections is flawed and dangerous. But we remain hopeful that the Ninth Circuit will recognize this overreach for what it is.
Please continue to pray for a favorable outcome in this crucial case.