A federal judge in Idaho has barred the state from enforcing a strict abortion ban in medical emergencies over concerns that it violates federal law on emergency medical care.
Wednesday night’s ruling came after a federal judge in Texas made an opposing call earlier this week, barring the federal government from enforcing legal interpretations of emergency medical and labor laws. Mothers are in danger.
In Idaho, the ban makes abortion in a “clinically diagnosable pregnancy” a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Many of Idaho’s laws go into effect Thursday, but U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled Wednesday that a person performing an abortion in a medical emergency situation cannot be prosecuted.
That’s because abortions in these cases appear to fall under federal health law, which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to provide “stabilizing care” to their patients, Winmill said.
“Fight back to defend your right to health care”:After the Roe v. Wade case was overturned, donations flooded in for abortion groups.this is what it means
This includes cases where the patient’s health is in serious danger during pregnancy, where continued pregnancy would result in serious impairment of bodily functions, or where an organ or part of the body would be severely impaired. This includes cases where there is a possibility that
The moratorium on enforcement in Idaho will last until lawsuits challenging the ban are resolved, the judge said in his ruling.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued the Republican-led state of Idaho earlier this month, saying its abortion ban, which is set to take effect Thursday, violates the Federal Emergency Medical and Labor Act (EMTALA) Act. Although it criminalizes all abortions in “clinically diagnosable pregnancies,” doctors refuse to defend themselves in court, arguing that the procedure was necessary to avoid the mother’s death. I admit it.
“The Department of Justice will continue to use all tools at its disposal to defend reproductive rights protected by federal law,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland in Idaho’s post-judgment statement. “The Department of Justice disagrees with yesterday’s decision,” added the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Scott Graf, a spokesman for the Idaho Attorney General, said his office would not comment on the ruling because the case is still pending in court.
Winmill said the case was not about abortion rights but about whether state or federal law prevails in this situation. said it was clear.
Winmill said the Idaho law would create a dilemma for doctors who felt they had to perform an abortion under an “EMTALA obligation” to save the mother’s life, even though it is prohibited by state law. rice field.
How the abortion debate will affect the midterm elections:Most Americans want a chance to support abortion rights on state ballots, USA TODAY/Ipsos poll shows
“The heart of the Supreme Court clause is that if state law cannot follow federal law, then state law must yield to federal law. And that is what this case is all about,” Winmill wrote. “It’s not about past constitutional rights to abortion.”
In Texas, a federal judge took the opposite approach. The state of Texas sued the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Xavier Becerra last month, arguing that federal law, commonly known as EMTALA, does not require doctors to perform abortions if they violate state law.
In a ruling late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendricks temporarily blocked the government from enforcing guidance in Texas, allowing EMTALA to “go to abortion.”
Performing an abortion creates an “emergency medical condition” in the fetus or embryo, the judge wrote.
“Since the law is silent on this issue, the guidance cannot answer how physicians should assess risk to both mother and fetus,” the judge’s order said. In doing so, state law also cannot cause conflict with non-existent state law, and therefore the guidance was unauthorized.”
The Department of Health and Human Services said it is reviewing legal decisions to determine next steps.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called the Texas decision “a blow to the people of Texas,” saying pregnant Texas women should seek proper treatment for conditions such as dangerously high blood pressure and severe bleeding. He said it could be rejected.
“It’s wrong. It’s the other way around and women can die as a result. The fight is not over,” Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the guidance in July, weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not a constitutional right.
Authorities will determine if a person seeking treatment is in labour, or is facing an urgent health condition, or is likely to develop into an emergency, and provide stabilizing care. To do so, we have cited the EMTALA requirements for healthcare facilities.
Texas argues that the EMTALA guidelines also violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that some laws serve persuasive government interests when they affect an individual’s religious freedom. states that it must be strictly adjusted to
In Texas, a bill banning abortions at any point during pregnancy is set to go into effect Thursday. There are narrow exceptions to save the life of the fetus or woman, to prevent serious health conditions from being exacerbated or caused by pregnancy, or to eliminate ectopic pregnancies.
Clinics in Texas have already stopped offering nearly all types of abortions because of uncertainty about whether they can enforce the state’s 1925 ban. The state also prohibits abortion after fetal heart activity has been detected. This is usually about 6 weeks before conception and often before the woman knows she is pregnant.
