TThe U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a case about whether Idaho can enforce its near-total ban on abortion in medical emergencies under a federal law that requires most hospitals to treat patients with life-threatening conditions.
The case marks the second abortion-related challenge to be presented to the justices this term, following the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in a 2022 ruling that left abortion policy up to the states. Legal experts anticipate that the Court’s decision in the Idaho case, called Moyle v. USAcould set a significant precedent on whether emergency medical care can be denied to a pregnant woman in distress in order to save the fetus.
At the heart of the case is the conflict between Idaho’s strict abortion restrictions and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to stabilize patients facing life-threatening conditions, regardless of their ability. of payment. Idaho asserts that EMTALA’s language requires equal treatment of both the pregnant patient and the “unborn child,” arguing that its near-total ban on abortion does not conflict with federal law.
Judges must decide whether they believe the Idaho law conflicts with the federal EMTALA law. If they do, then the fundamental legal question they will have to consider is whether federal law supersedes state law when the two are in conflict, says Jill Habig, former legal counsel to Vice President Kamala Harris in the U.S. attorney general’s office. California, who now directs the Public Rights Project. Although courts have consistently ruled in favor of federal law under the Supremacy Clause, the Idaho case attempts to challenge this fundamental principle. “What we learned laterDobbs, and especially with this right-wing court, is that things that should be simple legally are not really simple in practice,” says Habig.
The legal battle in Idaho is part of a broader wave of challenges following the 2022 crisis Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v., when a so-called “trigger” law automatically went into effect in Idaho, banning all abortions except in cases where it was deemed necessary to prevent the death of the mother. In court filings, Idaho noted that the term “abortion” is absent from the EMTALA statute enacted by Congress in 1986, arguing that abortion care was not intended to be one of the stabilizing treatments required by law. The statute, however, includes the phrase “unborn child,” which the state says requires consideration of the well-being of the fetus when addressing medical emergencies.
See more information: How Kate Cox Became a Reluctant Face of the Abortion Rights Movement
“Idaho law is perfectly consistent with EMTALA, which provides explicit protections for ‘unborn children’ in four distinct locations,” the state’s Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador said in a statement. “The notion that EMTALA requires doctors to perform abortions is absurd.”
Idaho lawyers argue that federal law only requires doctors to administer stabilizing treatments that are “available” at a given hospital, and since abortion is largely prohibited under state law, it is effectively unavailable.
The Biden administration sued Idaho over its 2022 abortion ban, resulting in a temporary injunction that prevents its application in emergency care situations, but the case has raised questions about the ongoing struggle between federal and state authorities in setting reproductive health policy. . If the court upholds Idaho’s interpretation, it would mark the first instance of a federal law granting individual rights to a fetus and could pave the way for other Republican-led states to enact similar bans, even in emergency situations.
Fourteen states have banned abortion since the fall of Roe v., and although each of these prohibitions includes some type of exception for the mother’s life, patients, doctors, and lawyers face challenges in interpreting the language of the statutes. Many states allow abortion in a “medical emergency” but don’t offer a concrete definition of that term, says Molly Duane, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. As a result, some women seeking abortions have been moved away from hospitals in life-threatening situations.
“What we know from the real-world experiences of patients and medical providers is that doctors are afraid to rely on these exceptions when years of prison time and loss of their medical license are at stake,” says Duane, adding that the abortion law of Idaho could allow state officials to question doctors about whether their patient is close enough to death to have an abortion.
See more information: What Idaho’s Lockdown on Emergency Abortion Care Means for Doctors Like Me
Several Idaho-based medical providers wrote in amicus briefs that the state’s abortion law does not correspond to common medical judgment, forcing doctors to violate their oath and delay medical care until their patient’s condition deteriorates to the point that a abortion is necessary to save their lives. Some obstetricians and gynecologists decided to leave Idaho out of fear of being sued for treating patients, according to the documents. “There is no obstetrics and gynecology practice where abortion as a life-saving measure can be eliminated,” says Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, a family medicine obstetrician in Idaho and co-chair of the Idaho Coalition for Safe Health Care.
The outcome of the Supreme Court’s latest abortion-related case is poised to send a signal to states regarding their autonomy in setting abortion policy. A ruling in Idaho’s favor, legal experts say, could allow other states to pass strict abortion bans with fewer exceptions.
“We’ve seen across the country a rush by anti-abortion states to pass increasingly extreme bans,” Habig says, “and I think we can expect other states to follow Idaho’s lead if the Supreme Court allows Idaho to override federal law. and women’s health.”
This story originally appeared on Time.com read the full story
