Labrador has failed to keep his pledge to represent the people

Two headlines in the Dec. 11 issue of the Idaho Capital Sun caught my attention because they typified Raul Labrador’s track record during his two years in office. 

While Labrador promised to represent the interests of the people, he has utterly failed to do so. The first headline proclaimed: “Judges in Oregon, Washington, block Kroger-Albertsons supermarket merger.” The second headline said: “Appeals court considers next step for emergency abortion care in Idaho.” In the first instance, Labrador chose to sit out a case that would have increased the grocery bill of Idaho families in areas where Fred Meyer and Albertsons compete for customers. In the second, Labrador has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prevent women with dangerous pregnancies from getting life-saving care in Idaho emergency rooms.

When the Kroger-Albertsons merger was announced in October of 2022, the anti-competitive implications of the first- and second-largest traditional grocers combining was obvious. It was practically a no-brainer that competition would suffer and grocery prices would rise. In March of 2023, Labrador’s office indicated that he was reviewing the deal. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission and eight states, including Oregon, Nevada and Wyoming, filed suit against the grocers, claiming that the merger would increase grocery prices in the areas where the two companies competed head-to-head. That was certainly the case in significant portions of the State of Idaho. A U.S. Senator from another neighboring state, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, strongly opposed the merger. Washington and Colorado filed separate state lawsuits to stop the merger. 

Labrador failed to lift a finger to protect Idahoans from the rising food prices that would have resulted from the merger. On Dec. 10, the U.S. District Court Judge handling the FTC suit halted the merger, ruling that it would harm consumers with rising prices. The Washington state court judge handling that state’s case ruled that it would lessen competition and violate Washington’s consumer protection laws. It would, likewise, have violated Idaho’s protection consumer laws. Although Labrador failed to take any action, Idaho consumers benefited from actions taken by surrounding state Attorneys General.

This is not the only important issue for Idahoans that Labrador has failed to address. When a serious water dispute arose earlier this year between Magic Valley water users and upstream water right holders, the Attorney General failed to take a leadership role in trying to resolve it. Previous Idaho AGs — myself, Echo Hawk, Lance and Wasden — had used our legal expertise to weigh in on water disputes that threatened the lifeblood of segments of the water community. It took so much of my time that I wrote a whole book about it — ”A Little Dam Problem: How Idaho almost lost control of the Snake River.” Labrador should have actively engaged in trying to resolve the dispute. Thankfully, the Governor and Lt. Governor stepped up to help fashion a compromise in his absence.

The abortion care headline mentioned above dealt with Labrador’s continual effort to block emergency room care for women who develop life-threatening pregnancy conditions. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires most hospitals to provide stabilizing care to people who arrive with a medical emergency. Labrador has taken the position that Idaho’s total abortion ban does not conflict with the requirements of EMTALA and has tried to sell that position to the federal district court in Idaho, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). None of them have bought his argument. 

Idaho law says a doctor can perform an abortion that is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Labrador claims that language means the doctor can perform an abortion if deemed necessary to save her life. There is a huge difference when the doctor can be sent to prison by making the wrong call. How close to death’s doorstep must the woman be for the doctor to abort the fetus under the letter of the law? Labrador claims the doctor is safe if he or she acts in good faith. Yet, when doctors have stated they need to send women out of state to get necessary emergency care, Labrador claims they are liars, not acting in good faith. 

Labrador’s crusade may all be in vain because SCOTUS accidentally leaked an opinion on June 26, ruling against Labrador by a 6-3 vote. The Court quickly withdrew the opinion and, instead, sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which resulted in the second Dec. 11 headline mentioned above. Idahoans can vigorously differ on whether or when a non-emergent abortion can take place, but most Idahoans would be in agreement with the SCOTUS opinion, favoring the EMTALA position over Labrador’s skewed view of the law.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). His columns are collected at JJCommonTater.com