{"id":327293,"date":"2025-03-06T06:40:55","date_gmt":"2025-03-06T12:40:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=327293"},"modified":"2025-03-07T08:53:53","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T14:53:53","slug":"department-justice-drop-idaho-lawsuit-emergency-abortions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/department-justice-drop-idaho-lawsuit-emergency-abortions\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump DOJ to drop Idaho lawsuit regarding ’emergency’ abortions. Idaho medical center files its own lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Update 3\/7\/2025<\/strong>: Following the Trump Department of Justice’s (DOJ) announcement that it intends to drop a lawsuit brought against Idaho by the Biden DOJ regarding so-called “emergency” abortions, St. Luke’s hospital brought a similar suit<\/a> against Idaho’s attorney general.<\/p>\n

The original Biden DOJ lawsuit argued that Idaho’s pro-life law conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires that hospitals receiving federal funds provide stabilizing care to patients in emergency situations. The Bideo DOJ claimed, erroneously, that for pregnant women, stabilizing care can include induced abortions \u2014 the direct and intentional killing of their preborn children.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, US District Judge B. Lynn Winmill heard arguments in St. Luke’s case as the health care system \u2014 the largest in Idaho \u2014 asked the judge to block the pro-life law from applying to emergency situations as its case proceeds. The injunction would replace the one that was in place under the original Biden DOJ lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Winmill issued<\/a> a temporary restraining order that will remain in place as he considers the injunction request. The state argued that the pro-life law does not conflict with EMTALA.<\/p>\n

St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center made headlines<\/a> last year after it transferred a woman, Nicole Miller, to a hospital in Utah where she awoke to learn doctors had dismembered her baby. Doctors in Idaho had explained that she may need a preterm delivery<\/em> due to preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) and heavy bleeding; however, the labor and delivery unit at St. Luke’s “put Ms. Miller on a small plane to Utah,” wrote the New York Times. “Only when she woke up the next morning did she understand, because a nurse had told her, that she was airlifted so she could have an abortion.”<\/p>\n

3\/6\/2025<\/strong>: The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled that it will drop the lawsuit<\/a> against Idaho originally filed by the Biden DOJ in 2022. The suit was an attempt to force the state to commit so-called “emergency<\/a>” abortions in hospitals, under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).<\/p>\n

In the original lawsuit<\/a>, the Biden DOJ claimed that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act violates the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requiring hospitals receiving federal Medicare funding to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in the emergency room during a medical emergency. The Biden administration argued that \u201cstabilizing care\u201d could include induced abortion, which intentionally kills a preborn child. As Idaho’s law already allows abortion to save the life of the mother<\/em> (though it is not medically necessary to directly and intentionally kill a preborn child in an emergency situation), it appeared that the Biden DOJ’s move was an attempt to redefine the intentional killing of a\u00a0preborn human being as \u201cstabilizing treatment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Idaho asked the Supreme Court to intercede, and the Court issued a stay on an injunction against the law, allowing the state’s Defense of Life Act to temporarily take effect. Once the Supreme Court decided to send the case back to the Ninth Circuit for review, the injunction against the state was put back in place. However, that injunction was very narrow, and reads: \u201cDuring the pendency of this lawsuit, the State of Idaho will be enjoined from enforcing Idaho Code \u00a7 18- 622 to the extent that statute conflicts with EMTALA-mandated care<\/strong>\u00a0(emphasis added).\u201d<\/p>\n

This meant that any hospital receiving Medicaid funding was forced to allow abortions to be committed under the loose definition of “stabilizing care.” In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit Court still has not issued an opinion on the lawsuit \u2014 and now, seemingly, may not have to.<\/p>\n