Supporting Idaho’s Defense Against Federal Preemption of Abortion Restrictions
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH – Attorney General Sean D. Reyes joined 19 States on an amicus brief in United States v. Idaho at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The filing, which was led by the State of Indiana, supports Idaho’s defense of its abortion restrictions against federal preemption.
The federal government is attempting to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) – which requires hospitals that accept Medicaid to evaluate and stabilize emergency room patients – to override Idaho’s lawfully enacted policies and regulations governing access to abortion. The federal government claims that EMTALA preempts enforcement of Idaho’s abortion law for hospitals that accept Medicaid. The coalition of attorneys general supporting the Idaho believe that this claim, if accepted by courts, would set a dangerous precedent that gives federal bureaucrats and private parties authority to disregard state health laws merely because they choose to participate in federal programs.
In their brief, the attorneys general argue that “through its novel – and breathtakingly broad – view of EMTALA, the United States seeks to invert state and federal roles,” that “EMTALA does not preempt generally applicable state laws regulating medicine,” that “construing EMTALA to preempt Idaho law raises serious constitutional difficulties,” and that “the United States lacks a cause of action.”
As the coalition explained, “Perhaps some might agree with the United States’ current policy. But it is important to remember that the United States’ position on federalism cuts both ways: the United States’ position also means that Congress could use Spending Clause conditions to ban medical providers who accept Medicaid or Medicare patients from providing abortions in States that have a state constitutional amendment requiring abortion to be available. And what’s to stop Congress from seeking to meddle with state affairs only in the abortion context? Perhaps another Congress would enact Spending Clause legislation that pays private gun shops to ignore otherwise constitutional state restrictions on firearm sales. Policy preferences should not affect what one thinks of the United States’ grab for power.”
Joining Utah and Indiana on the brief were the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
