|
Temporary Restraining Order Granted in St. Luke's EMTALA Suit
As predicted, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration has dropped it's Biden-era lawsuit against the state of Idaho over potential conflicts between EMTALA and Idaho's abortion ban.
St. Luke's Health System, which filed suit in January against the state in anticipation of the DOJ dropping its suit, pled for a temporary restraining order to ensure that abortions provided in emergency situations don't become illegal while the court deliberates. Idaho U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted the temporary restraining order, which currently applies to any Idaho provider or hospital subject to EMTALA, and prohibits the Attorney General's office from prosecuting medical providers who provide abortions for patients experiencing medical emergencies.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador's office asked that the St. Luke's case be dismissed, arguing that there is no conflict between Idaho's law and EMTALA. The AG's office further requested that the temporary restraining order be narrowed in scope to apply only to St. Luke's.
The temporary restraining order is in effect while Judge Winmill considers the state's motion for dismissal and St. Luke's request for an injunction for the duration of the trial.
A recent JAMA research letter found that states with abortion restrictions enacted after the Dobbs decision lost Ob/Gyn and women's health specialist coverage compared with states where abortion access did not change. The 12 most restrictive states, Idaho included, saw a 4.2% decrease in Ob/Gyn practitioners per 100,000 reproductive-aged females compared with states that maintained stable abortion access, a difference of 3.0 practitioners per 100,000 women.
According to a brief from KFF on the criminal and liability impact of abortion bans, many Ob/Gyns who are concerned about their legal risk are troubled by the "reasonable medical judgment" legal standard used in most states (including Idaho) under which an abortion may qualify for an exception:
This legal standard does not defer to the treating physician's judgment but rather allows a court to review circumstances after the abortion has been completed and rely on the testimony of other medical experts to determine whether the treating physician met the standard. Some anti-abortion advocates, legislators, and state attorneys' general maintain, however, that it is physicians, not the abortion bans, that are responsible for denial and delays of care, and have implied that providers should face medical malpractice lawsuits for not properly following those exceptions.
While physicians are faced with criminal and professional penalties if they provide abortion care for health reasons that are later second-guessed in court, if they do not provide this care or delay it, they could potentially be sued for medical malpractice for failing to provide timely and necessary care.
The Trump administration has not yet indicated whether it also plans to rescind the Biden administration's 2022 guidance that hospitals must render stabilizing care in an emergency, including abortions when necessary, regardless of state bans.
IMA continues to work with legislators and stakeholders throughout the state to restore the full scope of care for pregnant patients facing serious health risks, and to preserve access to care by fostering a practice environment that attracts and retains a strong physician workforce.
|