John,
Okay - by now, you've likely heard about the Mifepristone case that SCOTUS is hearing (and probably even took action or saw us put our bodies on the line in Washington, DC, in defense of Mifepristone). But there's this whole other case that is… yea. WTF.
A federal law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires hospitals to provide “such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition” of anyone who is having an emergency while pregnant.
What does this mean? If someone has to choose between carrying their pregnancy or stabilizing their own medical condition, EMTALA guarantees that hospitals have to offer treatment to save the mother’s life, even if it includes terminating the pregnancy.
A lower court in Idaho heard a case and held that EMTALA, a federal law, preempts Idaho’s sweeping abortion ban (yep, a state law).
Still with us? Good. Because someone actually addressed the issue of conflicting state and federal law. The framers of the Constitution were clear on the issue: federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” meaning that it preempts any state law that conflicts with it.
Will the “textualists” and “originalists,” aka extremists, on the court uphold the Constitution? Or will they continue their crusade against reproductive freedom?
In struggle,
Women's March
If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately.
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
