Supreme Court hears oral arguments on whether the Biden administration can force doctors in emergency rooms to perform abortions

The Supreme Court of the United States has started hearing oral arguments on a federal government mandate that could force emergency room doctors to perform abortions under the guise of “medical necessity.” The oral arguments began on April 24 in Idaho.

The legal battle traces back to August 2022, when the administration of President Joe Biden filed a lawsuit claiming that the Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act (EMTALA) supersedes the pro-life regulations of Idaho, compelling emergency room physicians in the state to conduct abortions that are prohibited by state law. Initially, a lower court ruled in favor of the administration, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and permit Idaho to enforce its pro-life statutes until a resolution was reached.

In response to the lower court ruling, Idaho’s Republican Attorney General Raul Labrador, alongside legal representatives from the conservative legal advocacy group the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the law firm Cooper and Kirk, filed a rebuttal brief earlier in April. They argued that the administration’s interpretation of EMTALA is flawed, contending that the law does not compel procedures contrary to state regulations and does not mandate services unavailable at specific hospitals. They further argue that EMTALA actually stresses the provision of care for unborn children.

Under Idaho law, abortion is permitted if a physician determines it is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” However, the law stipulates that the physician must use a method that offers “the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in his good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would have posed a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman.” (Related: Federal appeals court temporarily limits Idaho’s near-total abortion ban due to ongoing legal proceedings.)

Human knowledge is under attack! Governments and powerful corporations are using censorship to wipe out humanity's knowledge base about nutrition, herbs, self-reliance, natural immunity, food production, preparedness and much more. We are preserving human knowledge using AI technology while building the infrastructure of human freedom. Speak freely without censorship at the new decentralized, blockchain-power Brighteon.io. Explore our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Support our efforts to build the infrastructure of human freedom by shopping at HealthRangerStore.com, featuring lab-tested, certified organic, non-GMO foods and nutritional solutions.

During the oral arguments, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito observed that EMTALA explicitly acknowledges the term “unborn child.” Alito then questioned its inclusion and argued that performing an abortion contradicts this duty to protect the unborn child.

“So, in that situation, the hospital must stabilize the threat to the unborn child. And it seems that the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child, but performing an abortion is antithetical to that duty,” Alito said.

Labrador challenges the Biden administration’s overreach on abortion laws

In a statement to the media, Labrador criticized the Biden administration’s stance on abortion, calling it a “lawless disregard” for Idaho’s right to protect life.

“The administration’s radical interpretation of federal law is nothing more than a lawless disregard for Idaho’s right to protect life,” he said. “Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is perfectly consistent with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which provides explicit protections for ‘unborn children’ in four separate places.”

“But the Biden administration is trying to use one life-affirming law to invalidate another,” Labrador added. “We are asking the Supreme Court to end the administration’s unlawful overreach and to respect the decision of the people of Idaho to safeguard the lives of women and their unborn children.”

ADF President, CEO and General Counsel Kristen Waggoner echoed Labrador’s sentiments. She argued that there is no conflict between Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and EMTALA.

“The Biden administration lacks the authority to override Idaho’s law and force emergency room doctors to perform abortions,” Waggoner said. “There is no conflict between Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and EMTALA. Both Idaho’s law and EMTALA seek to protect the lives of women and their unborn children. The Supreme Court should end the Biden administration’s lawlessness and uphold Idaho’s rightful authority to protect life.”

Learn more about abortion in the U.S. post-Roe v. Wade at Abortions.news.

Watch this clip from “Judging Freedom” as Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses how legalizing abortion changed America.

This video is from the channel What Is Happening on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

NO TO “ABORTION TRAFFICKING”: Lubbock County Commissioners Court approves anti-abortion transport ban.

Arkansas pro-lifers mobilize to defeat radical pro-abortion constitutional amendment.

Women’s magazine gives detailed instructions for carrying out “satanic abortion ritual.”

Supreme Court ruling on use of abortion pill could impact November elections.

ABORTION LUNACY: Elizabeth Warren called for abortion TENTS at national parks to butcher babies in red states.

Sources include:

LifeSiteNews.com

ADFMedia.org

Brighteon.com