Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador told reporters he was optimistic about further legal proceedings following the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to allow the lower courts to continue their review of the Biden administration’s effort to block the state’s strict anti-abortion statute.
Labrador said in a press call following the decision in Moyle v US on Thursday that he is confident the lower courts will dismiss the Biden administration’s case that the state’s anti-abortion law, which allows abortions when “necessary to prevent death,” violates federal emergency medicine statutes.
“I remain committed to protect unborn life and ensure women in Idaho receive necessary medical care, and I will continue my outreach to doctors and hospitals across Idaho to ensure that they understand what our law requires,” Labrador said. “We look forward to ending this administration’s relentless overreach into Idahoans’s right to protect and defend life.”
The Biden administration sued Idaho in 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, when Idaho's strict abortion ban took effect. The administration argued that, in certain rare and extreme emergency situations, abortion could constitute a medically stabilizing treatment under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, and denying abortions in non-life-threatening medical emergencies violated federal law.
The decision to send the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gained the support of three conservative justices — Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts – due to the concessions made by the Biden administration that the mental health of the mother does not constitute a medical emergency.
The three justices also concurred with the Democrat-appointed minority because Idaho’s counsel, during oral arguments, highlighted that the state’s own interpretation of the anti-abortion statute only requires that physicians make a “good faith judgment” that a pregnant patient’s medical condition could potentially threaten her life.
“The Idaho Supreme Court, the Idaho legislature, and I have all said that as long as they have a good faith belief that their life could be in jeopardy, even if it's not immediate, that they can perform the abortion,” Labrador told reporters on Thursday.
Labrador also said that because the three other Republican -appointed judges —Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch — agreed with his office’s interpretation of EMTALA, he is confident that the Ninth Circuit will rule in Idaho’s favor.
“What is clear is that the majority of the Supreme Court understood that either the interpretation of the U.S. government was wrong, as the dissent said, or, as the three conservatives said in their move to go to the Ninth Circuit, that the [federal government’s] interpretation would have been severely limited by their concessions,” Labrador said. “So we feel pretty strongly that we’re going to win this case in the end.”
Labrador also said that he has been consulting with doctors and healthcare providers across his state to clarify any ambiguity in the law that makes them question whether or not they can perform medically necessary abortions during emergency situations.
In his discussions with medical professionals, Labrador said that one of the biggest fears among doctors is that criminal prosecution under the anti-abortion statute would be as easy to pursue as medical malpractice. Labrador noted, however, that criminal statutes require proof beyond a reasonable doubt whereas civil cases, including malpractice, only follow a preponderance-of-evidence standard.
Labrador also said that abortion -rights groups are working hard to “confuse doctors and make them scared of what our law says.”
“I think there is less confusion, but there will continue to be confusion because there will always be the forces that are trying to force abortion exceptions in emergency rooms. They will always try to mislead and misstate what the law in Idaho says,” said Labrador.
Labrador also said that the fight over EMTALA will likely return to the Supreme Court “in some form” as the Biden administration continues to litigate with the state of Texas over a similar issue.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Texas in the Biden administration’s lawsuit against the Lone Star State’s anti-abortion statute, which has a similarly narrow life of the mother exception for emergency abortion cases.
“Whether it’s a combination of both cases or whether it’s the Texas case or the Idaho case, I think this issue will definitely go before the Supreme Court again,” said Labrador.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement following the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting that his office is also confident in their continuation of pending litigation.
“The Justice Department filed this lawsuit because the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, guarantees essential emergency care to all Americans, no matter which state they live in,” said Garland. “The Justice Department will continue to use every available tool to ensure that women in every state have access to that care.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0