Idaho court issues ruling on emergency care following Dobbs decision

A federal judge in Idaho Aug. 24 preliminarily enjoined an Idaho law in circumstances where it would conflict with the requirements of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The court concluded that the Idaho law lacks “a cutout for EMTALA-required care,” and thus “would inject tremendous uncertainty into precisely what care is required (and permitted) for pregnant patients who present in Medicare-funded emergency rooms with emergency medical conditions.” The AHA and the Association of American Medical Colleges Aug. 15 filed an amicus brief in support of the federal government’s motion for preliminary injunction in this case, arguing that the Idaho law was preempted by EMTALA because it “generate(s) exactly the kind of uncertainty that is antithetical to the practice of sound emergency medicine.”