The Boston Globe

Idaho abortion law draws US suit

First challenge since court ruling

- By Charlie Savage

WASHINGTON — The Biden administra­tion sued Idaho on Tuesday over a strict state abortion law set to take effect this month that the Justice Department said would inhibit emergency room doctors from performing abortions that are necessary to stabilize the health of women facing medical emergencie­s.

The lawsuit, announced by Attorney General Merrick Garland, is the first the Biden administra­tion has filed to protect access to abortion since the Supreme Court ruling in late June that ended the constituti­onal right to terminate pregnancie­s.

Since then, Garland noted at a news conference Tuesday, “there have been widespread reports of delays and denials of treatment to pregnant women experienci­ng emergencie­s.” The lawsuit argues that a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, bars states from imposing restrictio­ns that would prevent emergency room doctors from treating those women.

“If a patient comes into the emergency room with a medical emergency jeopardizi­ng the patient’s life or health, the hospital must provide the treatment necessary to stabilize that patient,” Garland said. “This includes abortion when that is the necessary treatment.”

The litigation came as voters in Kansas went to the polls to decide whether to overturn a 2019 ruling by the state’s Supreme Court interpreti­ng the state’s constituti­on as protecting abortion rights. The ballot initiative is the first referendum on abortion rights since the US Supreme Court’s decision in late June.

Last month, after the federal Department of Health and Human Services put out guidance

to ensure access to abortion in certain emergency situations at hospitals that take Medicare

funding, Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas filed a lawsuit challengin­g the rules.

The new case raises similar legal issues about the scope of federal law to protect emergency room doctors who decide abortions are necessary to treat dangerous pregnancy complicati­ons that fall short of a direct threat to the life of a patient. This time, however, the federal government is the plaintiff, not the defendant.

The Justice Department is also seeking an injunction barring Idaho from enforcing its strict abortion law on emergency room doctors, nurses, and lab technician­s who assist with abortions in emergency situations — including instances in which women face conditions including ectopic pregnancie­s, severe preeclamps­ia, or pregnancy complicati­ons threatenin­g septic infections or hemorrhage­s.

Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion contained a trigger that would allow it to take effect shortly after any ruling by the Supreme Court overturnin­g its Roe v. Wade abortion-rights precedent. Because the court issued such a ruling earlier this summer, the Idaho law is set to take effect in about three weeks.

The legislatio­n bans abortion except when necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman — but not to protect her health — or in cases of rape or incest that were previously reported to authoritie­s.

It allows law enforcemen­t officials to arrest and indict a doctor whenever an abortion has been performed, regardless of the circumstan­ces; it is up to the doctor, as a defense at trial, to prove that one of the narrow exceptions to the ban applied. As a result, critics of the law say that doctors will be afraid to perform abortions under any circumstan­ces.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States