Excellent article by Alexandra Snyder, Chief Executive Officer at Life Legal Defense Foundation - please, please see www.lifelegaldefensefoundation.org.

Conversation opened. 1 unread message. Skip to content Using Gmail with screen readers 4 of 1,279 Supreme Court punts on Idaho abortion case Inbox Life Legal Defense Foundation 1:35 PM (2 hours ago) to me Supreme Court punts on Idaho abortion case...Alito disagrees The Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday in Moyle v. United States involving Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions except to save the mother’s life or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Idaho to require the state to allow abortions in circumstances other than those in which the mother’s life is at risk. At issue is whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts Idaho’s restrictions on abortion. Instead of ruling on the merits, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety, sending it back to the lower courts for further litigation. Justice Barrett, who agreed with the majority, noted, “We should not jump ahead of the lower courts, particularly on an issue of such importance.” The DOJ had successfully sued to enjoin (block) enforcement of the Defense of Life Act until January, when the Supreme Court “stayed” or temporarily lifted the injunction. This meant the Idaho law was again in effect and the state did not have to do abortions except in cases of life-threatening emergencies. Yesterday, however, the Supreme Court reversed its course and vacated the “stay” so that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is now enjoined until the case makes its way through the lower courts. Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion in the case, stating, “This about-face is baffling… Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable.” Justice Alito argued that the Court could have ruled on the merits of the case since EMTALA clearly “does not require hospitals to perform abortions in violation of Idaho law.” Rather, EMTALA requires hospital to protect the child’s health. As Justice Alito emphasized, “It goes without saying that aborting an unborn child does not protect it from jeopardy.” EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to ensure that patients have access to emergency medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay. Under this “anti-dumping” law, when a patient undergoing a medical emergency presents to a hospital that receives Medicare funds, the hospital is required to provide the care needed to treat or at least stabilize the patient’s condition pending transfer to another facility. EMTALA was amended in 1989 to specifically mandate consideration of the health “of the unborn child” in making decisions about treatment and transfer. Shortly after Dobbs was decided in June 2022, the Biden administration challenged Idaho’s pro-life law as part of its reinvigorated “all of government” push for abortion. The government claimed that EMTALA, which explicitly requires care for “the unborn child,” overrides Idaho’s protections for the unborn. According to this administration, emergency room doctors across the country are required by federal law to perform abortions – even when the mother’s life is not at risk. Life Legal filed an amicus brief in a similar case in Texas last summer, when the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance to hospitals “reminding” them of their “obligation” to continue to provide abortions even in states where abortion is illegal. In the brief, we argued that the use of the word “individual” in EMTALA should be construed to include an unborn child, meaning unborn children harmed by violations of the law could seek legal recourse for their injuries – and would impose a commensurate obligation on hospitals and physicians to provide emergency care for children in the womb, rather than aborting them. In that case, the Fifth Circuit decided that EMTALA did not pre-empt protective state laws. It is no surprise that pro-aborts and the federal government have done everything in their power to target and overturn pro-life initiatives since the Dobbs decision. Life Legal has been fighting these efforts since they began, and we both expect and are prepared to protect pro-life gains in the future. The Supreme Court may have decided against us in this case, but this was not our last chance to fight for life. The battle is far from over. Please consider making a donation today to stand with us on behalf of the inherent dignity and sanctity of innocent children in the womb. Even in this difficult political environment, we continue to fight the abortion lobby to protect the most vulnerable – and in a surprising number of cases, we win! We are so grateful for your prayers and your faithful support. Please consider making a donation today to stand with us on behalf of the inherent dignity and sanctity of innocent children in the womb. Even in this difficult political environment, we continue to fight the abortion lobby to protect the most vulnerable – and in a surprising number of cases, we win! We are so grateful for your prayers and your faithful support. Yours for the threatened child in the womb, Alexandra Snyder Chief Executive Officer “Small things done with great love will change the world.” ~ Mother Teresa "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter." Proverbs 24:11 PLEASE DONATE TODAY! Facebook Please pray for Life Legal cases and clients. Click here or on the image above to view and print our most current prayer requests. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. (1 John 5:15) PLEASE DONATE TODAY! Connect with us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Privacy Policy | Unsubscribe Life Legal Defense Foundation https://lifelegaldefensefoundation.org Zoomed out of item.