Supreme Court wrestles with abortion clash over emergency room treatment for pregnant women
The Biden administration says Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicts with a federal law setting standards for hospital emergency room care.
Read more at NBC News
US supreme court appears divided after hearing arguments on emergency abortion care
“If a woman comes to an emergency room facing a grave threat to her health, but she isn’t yet facing death, doctors either have to delay treatment and allow her condition to materially deteriorate, or they’re airlifting her out of the state so she can get the emergency care that she needs,” Prelogar said. “One hospital system in Idaho says that, right now, it’s having to transfer pregnant woman in medical crisis out of the state about once every other week. That’s untenable and Emtala does not countenance it.”
Read more at The Guardian
Conservatives Weave Anti-Abortion Fantasyland To Allow Emergency Room Abortion Bans
They pushed this vision, even while hospital systems in Idaho attest that they are airlifting pregnant women in crisis across state lines, or waiting for them to painfully “deteriorate” before treatment, cowed by the fact that prosecutors could come after them with punishments including mandatory prison time for violating the state ban.
Read more at Talking Points Memo
The Supreme Court’s likely to make it more dangerous to be pregnant in a red state
Idaho’s lawyer, moreover, struggled so hard to explain when Idaho’s law permits a doctor to perform a medically necessary abortion that Barrett accused him of “hedging.” Kavanaugh’s argument, in other words, would require the justices to ignore what’s happening in Idaho and to pretend that Idaho is somehow complying with EMTALA, despite the fact that Idaho’s own lawyer could not explain how its abortion ban works.
Read more at Vox
Supreme Court appears split on if states can prevent hospitals from providing abortions in medical emergencies
While focused on one state, the ruling will have implications across the country. A decision upholding Idaho’s ban in full — and finding that EMTALA does not preserve the right to an abortion under emergency medical circumstances — could encourage states with similarly restrictive bans to ignore the federal emergency care protection. Arkansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota, which all enforce near-total bans, also do not have exceptions for the health of the pregnant person.
Read more at 19th News
What’s at stake in emergency abortion care case before US supreme court?
However, if the court finds in favor of anti-abortion states, it could upend emergency care for millions of pregnant women and undermine the federal government’s ability to regulate emergency medicine.
Read more at The Guardian
5 things to know about today’s abortion case before SCOTUS
“Even in states that currently have access to abortion, removing the requirements of EMTALA will mean that hospital physicians there aren’t required to provide lifesaving care when it comes to pregnancy and abortion.”
Read more at Politico