CNN
—
Two years after abolishing the public’s right to abortion. Roe v. Wade Ace Attorneythe Supreme Court will scrutinize one of the Biden administration’s major efforts to preserve access to abortion in the post-Roe v. Wade era.
In a lawsuit being heard in court Wednesday, the Biden administration is challenging enforcement of Idaho’s abortion ban during medical emergencies, the most politically explosive flashpoint since Roe’s death. The spotlight is on the situation.
The Justice Department says federal law requires hospitals to perform abortions when necessary to stabilize the health of emergency patients, and states like Idaho have also banned abortions. claims.at that time a lawsuit was filedAttorney General Merrick Garland characterized the case as part of the department’s pledge to “work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom” in the wake of Roe’s reversal.
The case has proceeded somewhat under the radar, overshadowed by litigation. Other blockbuster abortion cases This year, a case came before the Supreme Court regarding federal regulation of abortion pills. But the Idaho case could result in the most significant ruling from the court on abortion since Roe’s reversal in 2022, and could further elevate the issue Democrats want to prioritize in the 2024 election this November. There is sex.
idaho claim The Biden administration is reportedly seeking to amend the federal law known as EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Affirmative Labor Act) to “create a nationwide abortion mandate in hospital emergency rooms.”
Idaho’s abortion law provides limited exemptions for abortions to save a pregnant woman’s life. But the Justice Department said the federal law would override state anti-abortion laws that prohibit emergency room doctors from providing abortion procedures to women whose pregnancy is causing a non-life-threatening medical emergency. claims.
“Many pregnancy complications are not life-threatening when a woman arrives in the emergency room, but delaying treatment until needed to prevent death can worsen a woman’s condition and lead to acute and long-term complications. may be at risk of illness,” the Ministry of Justice said in its brief to the High Court.
Abortion opponents, meanwhile, hope the Supreme Court will use the case to condemn what they say is an illegal effort by the Biden administration to overturn Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe.
“This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to counter the Biden administration’s massive pushback against Dobbs,” said Roger Severino, vice president for domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
A bipartisan Congress enacted EMTALA in 1986 to address the problem of “patient dumping.” This is a practice in which hospitals deny emergency care to patients, who are often uninsured, in order to save money.
Just over a month after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision cleared the way for states to enact strict anti-abortion laws, the Justice Department sued Idaho under the law, and within weeks the administration secured an order from a lower court Blocking Idaho’s abortion ban in medical emergency scenarios. Until the order was put on hold by higher courts, including the Supreme Court, this was a rare example of success the Biden administration could take to lessen the impact of Roe’s reversal.
It’s also a case that highlights what has been a particularly troubling narrative for the anti-abortion movement since Dobbs. In other words, abortion bans endanger the health of pregnant women, even if they ostensibly exempt the mother’s life. .
“These stories really resonate with the public and voters,” said Gretchen Borchelt, deputy director for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, which is assisting the Biden administration in the case. “I think this embodies in a unique way the impact of Dobbs’ decision on people.”
03:25 – Source: CNN
Abortion will be on the ballot in Arizona this November
John Bursch, vice president of appellate advocacy for the conservative law group Alliance Defending Freedom, who is co-counsel with Idaho in the case, told CNN that Idaho’s ban faces complications. He said it was an “intimidation tactic” to claim that the women in the country were not properly protected. He tried to distance the case from abortion politics.
“It is always possible to save the mother’s life if that is the only option,” he said. “So that’s not really what this case is about. And as much as they’re trying to talk about it, it’s actually not even about abortion.”
(Idaho Health Care Provider have Said Provide abortions to patients suffering from pregnancy complications that cause organ failure or other serious conditions, including conditions that may threaten future fertility, for several months after the abortion ban goes into effect. ).
Bursch framed the case around the question of whether EMTALA was a deliberate attempt by the federal government to control state medical practice.
“And before Dobbs, no one thought of that,” he said.
The other major abortion case on the docket this term, a challenge brought by anti-abortion doctors to how the federal government regulates the abortion drug known as mifepristone, is being held in oral order. During arguments, the justices indicated they were leaning toward dismissing the lawsuit because of the plaintiffs’ arguments. There was no standing to sue.
“Even if we eliminate the mifepristone case, the decision to make it harder for people to access emergency abortion care will have a significant impact on voters,” Borchelt said.
In a troubling sign for the administration in this case, the Supreme Court suspended a lower court’s ruling that partially blocked Idaho’s abortion ban, allowing lower courts to take up the case before fully considering the merits. Agreed. There was no public opposition to these moves.
Must hospitals provide “equivalent” emergency care to pregnant women and their unborn babies?
The case is likely to focus on how the judge read the term “fetus” in EMTALA. The term is mentioned many times in the law, and the definition of a medical emergency includes: during labor when the health of the fetus is at serious risk and the safety of the fetus may be jeopardized. Contains scenarios where patient transfer is restricted.
The reference to “fetus” was added by Congress in 1989 to clarify that EMTALA’s protections apply to women who visit a hospital because they are in labor or experiencing other pregnancy-related medical emergencies.
A Supreme Court brief filed by the state of Idaho points to language in EMTALA that asserts that “the instrument requires equal treatment of ‘unborn children.'”
“It’s complete nonsense that laws that require the protection of unborn children somehow require doctors to end lives in the emergency room,” Barsh told CNN.
The Charlotte Rosier Institute, an anti-abortion think tank, said in a friend-of-the-court statement: simple EMTALA “unequivocally protects the life of the fetus” and requires hospitals to “follow a two-patient paradigm to protect both mother and fetus.”
“The United States seeks to downplay the life of the “fetus,” which must be protected only when the mother’s health is not threatened, but which loses all value if the mother’s health is jeopardized. The attempt is contrary to the original meaning,” the brief said. “Congress expected hospitals and doctors to do everything possible to save both lives.”
Opponents in Idaho said the provision in question would allow ER patients who develop medical problems during pregnancy to suffer They counter that the aim is to guarantee access to treatment for complications.
“I think the implications of the discussion that the state of Idaho is trying to advance regarding the terminology and use of fetus in this law are extremely dangerous,” said Alexa Colbi-Molinas, deputy director of the Reproductive Freedom Project. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case.
Abortion rights advocates look beyond the controversy over Idaho’s abortion ban to a ruling in which the conservative majority urges the anti-abortion movement to take more aggressive steps in its push for fetal sexuality. I’m worried about that.
“We are taking this case to court, where they will discuss what the word ‘fetus’ means. So even if it is specific to EMTALA and its definition, Abortion opponents will use that and policymakers will use the court’s decision,” said Borchelt of the National Women’s Law Center. .
Barsh said it was “ridiculous” to argue that the case could lay the foundations for fetal personhood, depending on the court’s rules, and that the case concerns states’ ability to regulate medicines within their borders. He claimed that.
“This lawsuit challenges whether EMTALA overrides the choices of Idahoans to regulate the practice of medicine in our state and protect lives,” Barsh said.
