Twenty states, women affected by abortion, and several pro-life groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in State of Idaho v. United States of America asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to stop the Biden-Harris administration from misusing federal law to override Idaho’s Defense of Life Act. Idaho’s law protects the lives of women and their unborn children, preventing doctors from performing abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

The Office of the Idaho Attorney General, with the assistance of attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, filed an opening brief with the court earlier this month in support of allowing the state to fully protect life.

In August 2022, the Biden-Harris administration sued Idaho, claiming that it could use the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and pay private hospitals to violate Idaho’s protections for life. But as Idaho explains, the federal government cannot use its Spending Clause power to pay private parties to circumvent state law.

Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!

“Both Idaho’s law and EMTALA seek to protect the lives of women and their unborn children, and the consistency between those laws makes us confident about the future of this case,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice. “Moreover, the government’s claim that it can use its spending power to override any state law it doesn’t like is breathtaking. It’s also wrong. The Biden-Harris administration can’t pay private hospitals to violate state law. Under Idaho’s law, doctors will continue to provide care to women experiencing ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and life-threatening conditions. We join this broad range of advocates in urging the court to end the administration’s unlawful overreach and protect the people’s freedom to preserve life.”

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration. That court will hear the case in December.

“EMTALA cannot be read to preempt state laws regulating medicine, including abortion restrictions,” explains the brief filed by Indiana and 19 other states. “The statute requires hospitals accepting Medicaid and Medicare funds to stabilize patients with emergency medical conditions. But EMTALA does not purport to establish national standards as to what care is, or is not, medically necessary or appropriate. It simply prevents hospitals from refusing to stabilize patients using otherwise lawful medical procedures. Construing EMTALA’s stabilization requirement as requiring hospitals to provide abortions in violation of state law is particularly implausible.”

“By definition, measures taken to save the mother, the preborn child, or both are not considered ‘abortions’ in either common or medical parlance,” adds the brief filed by The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists. “The effort to blur this terminology is nothing more than a misguided attempt to both normalize induced abortions and to conscript EMTALA into requiring the provision of those abortions nationwide.”