Politics

/

ArcaMax

Idaho abortion decision leaves both sides in long-term limbo

Sandhya Raman, CQ-Roll Call on

Published in Political News

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s decision that Idaho’s near-total ban on abortions does not preempt federal rules requiring certain treatment in emergency rooms is the second major ruling to bolster the Biden administration on abortion rights since the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The ruling, at least for now, also preserves a key tool the Biden administration has increasingly relied upon since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022 — a 1986 law known by the acronym EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to all patients as a condition of receiving Medicare funding.

The Biden administration issued guidance in 2022 clarifying that patients in states with bans on most abortions are entitled to emergency abortions in their states in critical medical situations.

President Joe Biden on Thursday praised the decision, saying it ensured that women “can access the emergency medical care they need while this case returns to the lower courts.”

He and other Democrats have made reproductive health their top campaign issue for 2024.

“The stakes could not be higher and the contrast could not be clearer. My Administration is committed to defending reproductive freedom and maintains our long-standing position that women have the right to access the emergency medical care they need,” said Biden in a statement.

 

If former President Donald Trump is elected in November, this interpretation of the 1986 law could change. Project 2025, which has been vetting individuals and providing policies for a possible transition to a Trump administration, has urged rescinding this interpretation of the law.

Some advocates expressed dismay that the decision may only temporarily clarify the law’s interpretation.

Stella M. Dantas, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said she was “truly disappointed that this decision affords no long-term clarity of the law for doctors.”

“Litigation on this topic will undoubtedly continue,” said Dantas. “We urge the courts to affirm the availability of stabilizing emergency abortion care in every single state.”

...continued

swipe to next page

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus