Following the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule on the merits of a case involving a pro-life law in Idaho, the federal government sent a letter to hospitals across the country telling them they have a “duty to offer necessary stabilizing medical treatment,” including abortions.
The letter, which gave the effect of spiking the football, reiterated that the federal government will continue to defend its interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in court and will enforce punishments on hospitals that do not provide abortions as required by federal law — even if it conflicts with state law.
EMTALA is a federal law that requires hospital emergency rooms to provide treatment to a patient regardless of whether they have insurance or can pay for the service. The federal government is suing Idaho because they say that state law must allow for abortions beyond the life of the mother exception.
In a footnote, the letter admits that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “will continue to comply with all applicable federal conscience protections.”
This admission was a concession the federal government did not want to make and, indeed, did not make early on in this case. As the case moved to the Supreme Court for review, the federal government was forced to admit that doctors or hospitals that have conscience objections to performing abortions would not be compelled to do so.
The letter also failed to mention that the EMTALA has been challenged by the state of Texas. Texas claimed that the federal law went beyond HHS’s authority and that state law should govern. A federal district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have agreed with Texas. HHS has appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The matter is far from settled law.
Indeed, Idaho is the only state that must comply with EMTALA because of the Supreme Court’s ruling last month, which lifted the stay the Court had placed.
As previously reported by the Daily Citizen, in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to address the question of whether EMTALA overrides an Idaho law regarding when an abortion can be performed.
Rather than answer the specific question, the Court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for continued consideration.
Justice Barrett noted in her written opinion that since the Court accepted the case, many things had changed, including state law and the positions of the government and state litigants.
Justice Alito argued that the Court should have ruled in Idaho’s favor regardless of the shifting positions because the argument made by the federal government was unsound. He thinks the language of the federal law requires that hospitals protect the health of both the mother and the preborn baby.
Despite the intimidation tactics, let’s pray that hospitals and providers demonstrate courage as they act to protect both mothers and preborn babies in emergency situations.
The Daily Citizen will continue to follow these cases and provide additional updates.
Image from Getty.
The post HHS Uses Intimidation to Compel Hospitals in Pro-Life States to Provide Abortions appeared first on Daily Citizen.
Daily Citizen