Published September 20, 2024
On September 20, 2024, EPPC filed an amicus brief in United States v. Idaho in support of Idaho’s pro-life abortion law. The Biden-Harris administration claimed that Idaho’s law violates the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which prohibits Medicare-funded hospitals from dumping patients who can’t pay by requiring the hospitals to stabilize or transfer patients experiencing medical emergencies.
The case, pending before the en banc Ninth Circuit, was dismissed earlier this year by the Supreme Court, which chose not to issue a merits decision in large part because the United States had conceded at oral argument that (1) EMTALA could never require abortion in a mental health emergency and (2) EMTALA does not override federal conscience protections.
EPPC’s brief, drafted by Justin Butterfield and Lea Patterson of Butterfield & Patterson, PLLC, in partnership with EPPC scholars Rachel N. Morrison and Eric Kniffin, was based on two National Review articles Morrison wrote.
The brief highlights how the government’s two concessions ring hollow and argues that the concessions, made in an effort to avoid an adverse ruling at the Supreme Court, undercut the government’s own argument that EMTALA requires particular procedures, such as abortion. The brief concludes by urging the Ninth Circuit to reverse and vacate the district court’s injunction of Idaho’s pro-life law.
Rachel N. Morrison is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where she directs EPPC’s HHS Accountability Project. An attorney, her legal and policy work focuses on religious liberty, health care rights of conscience, the right to life, nondiscrimination, and civil rights.
