EMTALA and Biden Abuse of Power

EMTALA and Biden Abuse of Power

Post Dobbs

This week, the Supreme Court heard Idaho’s case against Biden.  In a nutshell, after Dobbs decision, state courts had the right to regulate abortion. Idaho’s trigger law went into effect.

Idaho law contains a clause that allows abortion if necesary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, or in cases of rape or incest

That wasn’t good enough for the Biden Pro-Abortion Administriation.  They stepped in and obtained an injunction against Idaho, using EMTALA to allow abortions, overriding state law.  The injunction was appealed (see State-of-Idaho-v-United-States-of-America-2023-11-20-Motion-To-Stay-Pending-Appeal), and the Supreme Court stayed the injunction, pending outcome of oral argument scheduled for April 24, 2024.

What is EMTALA?

EMTALA is the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.

Read it:  1395dd Examination and treatment for emergency medical conditions and women in labor.

EMTALA was enacted as part of the Medicare Act to prevent hospitals from turning away ER patients without insurance, also known as “patient dumping”.

EMTALA required hospitals that accept Medicare to screen ER patients for emergency medical conditions and provide stabilizing care.  EMTALA does not specify what type of treatments must be provided and allowed states to decide the standard of care.

EMTALA and Pregnancy

Regarding pregnant women, EMTALA requires this:

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Government Overreach

Seems pretty clear to me that EMTALA protects the unborn child as a patient, and not just the mother.

Why would EMTALA (which explicitly protects unborn children as a victim) require abortion?

Thus, doesn’t appear to me that abortions should be covered unless there is a threat to health or safety to the woman or the child. (As it also says under Idaho law).

Also, it’s pretty clear to me that if Dobbs can leave the decision of abortion back to the states, Idaho gets to decide when and if to allow abortions, if any.

Thus, it’s an abuse of federal power.  Overreach!  Unconstitutional.

Example Using Junk Food

It’s like this:

The Supreme Court says states get to decide if and when to allow junk food.

Pretend I am Idaho, and I prohibit junk food to protect my children.  There is a federal law that prohibits denying children food so they are not starving (FOODLAW) .  Biden then uses FOODLAW to override my junk food ban.  That’s what’s happening and that’s government overreach.  Abuse of power.

While the Supreme Court grapples with whether it was legally correct for Biden Admin to invoke EMTALA to force Idaho to abort babies, it raised another issue that got me thinking:

Why do some laws (like EMTALA and fetal homicide) protect unborn children, while others do not?