What Blocking Emergency Abortions in Idaho Means for Doctors
TimeApr 23
SCOTUS Hears Idaho Abortion Law Case
story
Image copyright: Andrew Harnik/Staff/Getty Images News via Getty Images
The Facts
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Wednesday heard arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, consolidated cases involving the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and whether it takes precedence over Idaho's near-total abortion ban.
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that Idaho's law is "entirely inconsistent" with EMTALA because it prohibits abortions to prevent imminent death and for life-altering conditions such as infertility and other conditions.
The Spin
Democratic narrative
SCOTUS must side with the government in order to protect the health of women facing life-threatening pregnancy complications. Republican-led states should also be warned that if this case goes their way, they'll likely face doctor shortages caused by the threat of criminal charges for providing emergency care.
Republican narrative
EMTALA was written to prevent death and protect the unborn, and the Biden administration's attempt to expand its scope is unconstitutional. SCOTUS can't let the Democratic administration impose its pro-choice views on pro-life states. It's paramount to protect state decisions if those states choose to restrict abortion access.
