The DOJ Files a Lawsuit Challenging Idaho's Strict Abortion Ban
The department claims that the ban, which provides no exceptions for medical emergencies, violates existing federal law.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit last week against the state of Idaho, arguing that its incredibly strict abortion ban violates a federal law requiring that hospitals provide stabilizing care to their patients.
"On the day Roe and Casey were overturned, we promised that the Justice Department would work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom," said Attorney General Merrick Garland in a press release. "That is what we are doing, and that is what we will continue to do. We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that pregnant women get the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law. And we will closely scrutinize state abortion laws to ensure that they comply with federal law."
Idaho's abortion trigger ban, which was passed in 2020 and is slated to go into effect on August 25, bans all abortions outright. Rather than offering a narrow list of exceptions, as other anti-abortion laws do, Idaho's law simply provides an affirmative legal defense for doctors arrested and charged with performing abortions. If a doctor can prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" that "[he] determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman," or if the physician has a copy of the patient's police report of rape, such doctors cannot be found guilty of performing an illegal abortion. However, if doctors charged with providing abortions fail to meet this standard, they can face up to five years in prison.
"Laws will exist that ask [physicians] to deprioritize the person in front of them and to act in a way that is medically harmful," Louise King, an OB-GYN at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told NPR, referring to new abortion restrictions taking effect across the U.S. "The penalty for not doing so will be loss of license, money loss, potentially even criminal sanctions." Idaho's law would likely incentivize doctors to delay care for dangerous pregnancy complications until a woman's death is imminent.
"When a hospital determines that an abortion is the medical treatment necessary to stabilize the patient's emergency medical condition, it is required by federal law to provide that treatment," Garland said during a press conference on August 2, noting that Idaho's law "would subject doctors to arrest and criminal prosecution, even if they perform an abortion to save a woman's life."
The DOJ is suing Idaho over this law, arguing that its blanket ban on abortions, even when the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life or preserve her health, violates federal law. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a 1986 federal law requiring hospitals that receive Medicare funds (which includes the vast majority of hospitals) to provide stabilizing care to their patients before discharging them. The DOJ argues that by banning abortions when they are necessary to stabilize a patient's medical condition (such as when an abortion prevents a deadly septic infection during an incomplete miscarriage or is necessary to begin treatment for newly diagnosed cancer), Idaho's abortion ban violates federal law and, therefore, must be struck down in accordance with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
However, the DOJ is only seeking to strike down the parts of the law which violate EMTALA. Idaho's abortion ban could be perfectly legal if it provided an exception for medically necessary abortions. "We seek an injunction prohibiting Idaho's enforcement of this law to the extent that it conflicts and prevents physicians from providing the emergency treatment that federal law requires," said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta at the August 2 press conference. "We know these are frightening and uncertain times for pregnant women and their providers, and the Justice Department, through the work of its task force is committed to doing everything we can to ensure continued lawful access to reproductive services."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can they spare the resources from persecuting parents and ex-presidents of the republican persuasion?
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even (avt-06) realisable but my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay241.blogspot.com
Garland probably would have done something similar if he were around when the 13th Amendment was ratified. It's just his nature.
They are going to keep fucking around and trying to get a federal guarantee of abortion rights until they end up back before the 6-3 majority that just told them to leave it to the states. When that happens, the Court will be forced not to relook abortion, it will be examining the exercise of federal power, mostly likely the commerce clause power. I don't think Democrats will like where that ends up very much. They overturned Roe, they could overturn Wickard too.
Please oh Please oh PLEASE! Can you imagine Kagan trying to put lipstick on THAT pig?
I have no doubt Alito and Thomas at the very least would love to overturn Wickard. If they piss off the court enough by trying to reinstate Roe via federal legislation, there might be three other justices who are willing to overturn Wickard.
That would be glorious.
Not sure about Alito, he's suspect to me. IIFC in Wynn v MD, he justified a good decision (no double taxation) but used the negative commerce clause (idea arose out of Wickard) in his opinion. Either Thomas or Scalia issued an opinion in favor of MD because of the originalist commerce clause interpretation.
Been awile since that case so some facts maybe off. I know Wynn, through a friend of mine so was interested at the time.
Gorsuch is a solid vote against though.
this is not an attempt to look at abortion again, it is an attempt to enforce an exception that every rational person agrees with that the lawmakers failed to include. (probably just laziness, because the law was intended as a political stunt... and they never expected Roe to actually be overturned.)
the question here is if the state can force a woman to die to save a child that will also die..... when you don't include a clear exception for the life of the mother, that is what you are doing. the woman can't get an abortion to save here life, even when the child is unlikely to survive when she dies.
the question here is if the state can force a woman to die to save a child that will also die
The question here is why are you such a fucking asshat?
i learned it by watching you....
Merrick Garland - the gift that keeps on giving. Sure glad this asshat isn't on SCOTUS.
I'm not seeing any violation of EMTALA. The existing controls (the affirmative legal defense described in the article above) are sufficient to comply with that law.
I disagree with Idaho's choice of law but this lawsuit against them looks more like a performative waste of taxpayer dollars than any real attempt to help people.
The Biden Administration in a nutshell.
the problem is that it treats the doctor criminals with an allowed defense instead of just clarifying it isn't a crime. they basically have to lawyer up and go to court, even when what they did wasn't wrong.
Is that any different than state laws that require you to prove self defense when if is obvious. This seems like a goose / gander situation to me.
The question I have is why are they only going after the low hanging fruit instead of the entire law? The National Socialists...er Democrats..er DOJ don't do anything without a plan.
yes, it is different. those self defense laws explicitly say it isn't a crime to act in self defense.... they don't list it as a valid argument to use at trial, they say it is legal.
the reason they don't go after the whole law..... we already know how the current court would rule on that.
Yes, and?
What you say is entirely true - and consistent with lots of other laws on the books. It's a crappy policy choice. That doesn't make it illegal.
Yeah, this is called malpractice. All kinds of doctors and hospitals carry it as MO. Saying OB/GYNs get special exception because of abortions is pretty blatantly unequal.
Merrick Garland is performative waste. Fact.
There is very little room to squeeze the case into. Federal law requires a participating hospital to stabilize a patient, admit a patient, or transfer the patient to another hospital. Once the patient is admitted they can burn her at the stake or force her to give birth as far as EMTALA is concerned; a different section of federal law covers inpatient care. The lawsuit would matter if a woman presents at the ER with a serious condition requiring an abortion but is not admitted to the hospital and not sent to an out of state hospital willing to perform an abortion. I read somewhere that seriously injured people in Idaho get flown to Washington because the state doesn't have a high enough grade trauma center.
Protecting the health of a "woman"'s "unborn child" is an explicit goal of the regulations implementing the act. See 42 CFR 489.24(b) definition of "emergency medical condition".
So your saying any doctor that performs an abortion should for whatever reason, should be arrested, jailed, make bail, hire an attorney, spend $thousands so the can show up in court to say 'hey, its justified because xxxxxxxxxx'? How long should their license be suspended?
And that doesn't sound chilling to you?
Read what I actually wrote. It's a stupid rule but that doesn't make it illegal.
“I'm not seeing any violation of EMTALA”
The state law provides a defense for a case of saving the mother's life (physical health), DOJ wants to include the fuzzy emotional and mental health.
I am looking forward to the usual crowd of "Libertarians for Preserving The Rights of Sacred-Human-DNA-Fallopian-Tube Cysts" to gather around very soon!
Idaho "R" politicians have historically been GREAT experts concerning lady-parts!!!
See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/23/idaho-republican-anti-abortion-swallow-camera , “Anti-abortion lawmaker gets anatomy lesson – women cannot swallow camera for exam.” (“Pill-cam”). It seems Idaho representative Vito Barbieri wasn’t listening in the third grade, when another student asked the teacher, “If babies come from mommy’s tummy, how come they don’t get digested?” And he’s not done ANY even vaguely serious studying of health matters since then, either! This clearly shows the UTTER medical ignorance of many power-hungry politicians, who would STILL over-regulate medicine, in order to pander to fanatics! Ignorance for the win, over decency, humility, and self-restraint!
They don't understand the magic birth canal that transforms a clump of cells into a full human being in an instant.
Shut up retard. Sorry but no matter how ignorant this guy is, you are even more ignorant and have no standing to throw stones.
Then PLEASE enlighten me, the lowly peon and medically ignorant one... HOW does one best bow low, and practice the PROPER Worshit of The Rights of Sacred-Human-DNA-Fallopian-Tube Cysts?!?! Please explain... As you would, to a child, Wise One!
When a man love a woman ....
Or to update for today's youth
When a person loves a birthing person ...
You argue like Nazi, or an antebellum plantation owner.
Sacred-Human-DNA-Fallopian-Tube Cysts are AKA ectopic pregnancies, for those who don't know... And are NOT viable! If left untreated, they can KILL the ain't-gonna-be-a-new-Mom-anyway!!!
So the NON-NAZI, NON-slave-owner thing to do, is to withhold life-saving medical from the ain't-gonna-be-a-new-Mom-anyway? Oh, OK then! I get it now! Thanks!
Opioids? Government knows best, doctors go to prison, says the DoJ.
Abortions? Doctors know best, says the DoJ.
The issue with opioids is that some doctors are prescribing them long after they are necessary for pain relief.
However, I think the heroin substitute is.... a bit worse. My vote, keep prescribing if it keeps them off the streets.
Less than one percent of people on opioid long term revert to heroine.
The issue with opioids is that some doctors are prescribing them long after they are necessary for pain relief.
So your point is that medical decisions are not private and should not be left to the patient and their doctor to decide. Glad to know that you think the decision in Roe v. Wade was bullshit.
Another instance where the Federal gubmint is acting to protect citizens' rights while a state gubmint is infringing on them.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)
It would be poetic justice if the courts found that unconstitutional (spoiler: it is).
Oh good lord, we cannot even have standards of medical treatment and need to leave it to the idiots in state government to decide?
These are the same people that on occasion wanted to define Pi as 3, ban the teaching of anything more than the earth is 6000 years old. And as the SQURLSY one pointed out, they wanted to have a women swallow a camera for remote gynecological exam.
At least with the federal government its easier to keep an eye on them.
Federalism is a bitch, isn't it?
But this nothing more than the Obamacare subsidies debate, namely that the feds can't withhold money for not getting with the program. SCOUTS found that illegal then, they can do so here.
"These are the same people that on occasion wanted to define..."
"At least with the federal government its easier to keep an eye on them."
Versus the people who can't define what a woman is, or that a vax will prevent Covid, or social distancing, or masks, they've redefined recession, called arson "peaceful protests", callled trespassing insurrection, etc.
These are the truth tellers you are defending?
And bees are a fish
The libertarian perspective: Idaho is attempting to reduce citizens' liberty. The Federal government is trying to stop them.
It doesn't matter who the players are: what matters is who is doing more for citizens' liberties. In this case it's the Feds, regardless of whether you think that Garland is a Soros/ZOG stooge.
"what matters is who is doing more for citizens' liberties"
Deserved a repeat..... +100000000
Again, that assumes only one life is involved, when two are involved. You have to balance the demands.
Embryos are not citizens.
That assumes Pro-Life was asking to save a second person instead of FORCING a person to procreate... Which it is NOT!
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction..
And no amount of Power-Mad B.S. propaganda can change that.
"Naw... Let ?Just-the-Womb? carriers die.. They aren't people anyways...", Pro-Life Power-Mad freak jobs.
Of course such decision should be made by [WE] Power-Mad freak jobs toting Gov-Guns and not the very PERSON (oh whoops; my mistake -- just those wombs with legs) who's life is on the line.
Once again Garland oversteps his authority, like any other communist, he is attempting to over rule state sovereignty, which of course he doesn't believe in.
And of course Garland was the one who gave the green light to invade Donald Trump's home in hopes of finding incriminating evidence against Trump but....they found none. Most likely the FBI troopers were too busy trying on Melania's dresses and undies.
" Hey, agent Smith, how do I look in this lacey bra?"
Sure, sure; Just because the partisan-activist B.S. Supreme Court pretended (those 'icky') pregnant people of the USA don't actually OWN themselves certainly is an excuse to start up Slave-State sovereignty again..
This truly is the very end of Individual Rights granted by the U.S. Constitution for what? State-Slavery?
Positive defense “If a doctor can prove by a "preponderance of the evidence... that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman,"
“an abortion is the medical treatment necessary to stabilize the patient's emergency medical condition”
That's precisely the issue. DOJ includes mental & emotional health and wants abortion for any “emergency medical condition” not just mother's physical health eg a woman comes into ER with panic attacks, anxiety, & depression supposedly due to being 16 weeks pregnant so Dr.'s “stabilize the patient's emergency medical condition” by providing her with an abortion.
are you really that stupid?
Maybe if Idaho was passing a law that made it illegal for doctors to intentionally kill a fetus... Instead of passing laws that FORCES women to reproduce there wouldn't be an issue at all...
Face the facts....
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.