TL/DR –
The Supreme Court is set to appraise the Biden administration’s efforts to maintain abortion access following the reversal of Roe v. Wade in an upcoming case. The case, brought forward by the Biden administration, challenges Idaho’s enforcement of its abortion ban during medical emergencies. The Justice Department argues that federal law necessitates hospitals to offer abortions in emergency situations, clashing with states’ bans on the procedure, while Idaho counters that the Biden administration is trying to create a nationwide abortion mandate in hospital emergency rooms.
Supreme Court to Examine Biden Administration’s Effort to Preserve Abortion Access
Two years following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court will analyze a major effort by the Biden administration to maintain abortion access. The Biden administration is challenging Idaho’s execution of its abortion ban in medical emergencies, highlighting one of the most politically volatile issues in the post-Roe v. Wade era.
The Justice Department insists that federal law mandates hospitals to offer abortions if needed to stabilize the health of emergency room patients, even in states like Idaho that prohibit the procedure. This case is part of the department’s commitment to “work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom” after the reversal of Roe, as stated by Attorney General Merrick Garland at the time the lawsuit was filed.
Idaho contends that the Biden administration is attempting to manipulate the federal law known as EMTALA to “create a nationwide abortion mandate in hospital emergency rooms.” The Justice Department argues that federal law overrides state abortion bans that prevent emergency room doctors from offering the procedure to women whose pregnancies are causing medical emergencies that are not yet life-threatening.
Anti-abortion advocates anticipate the Supreme Court will use the case to criticize what they view as an unlawful Biden administration attempt to undermine its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, the ruling that overturned Roe. A bipartisan Congress enacted EMTALA in 1986 to address the issue of “patient dumping,” the practice by hospitals to refuse emergency room care to patients, often uninsured, in order to save costs.
Idaho’s opponents argue that the provisions in question were designed to ensure that ER patients whose pregnancies were in medical trouble would receive treatment for those complications, even if the women themselves did not face serious health risks or possible death. Abortion rights advocates fear that beyond the dispute over Idaho’s abortion ban, the conservative majority will issue a ruling that will encourage the anti-abortion movement to take more aggressive steps in their push towards fetal personhood.
—
Read More Health & Wellness News ; US News