Hundreds of counter-protesters during the so-called March for Life, an anti-abortion gathering, in Cologne, Germany, on Sept. 16, 2023. (Ying Tang / NurPhoto via Getty Images) |
BY SEN. MELISSA WINTROW | Earlier this year, I watched in horror as my home state of Idaho vehemently argued in front of the Supreme Court, asserting that due to our extreme abortion ban, doctors may not provide emergency abortion care—even if a woman’s health is failing. They were adamant, making it clear that our law only allowed providers to intervene in cases of impending death. Their argument wasn’t just unconscionable; it was in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a nearly 40-year-old federal law that guarantees that anyone can receive treatment for emergency medical condition. Idaho ignored these protections when it passed our oppressive ban, which became the subject of Idaho v. United States.
The Supreme Court handed down its decision last week and vacated the case. This conclusion—at least temporarily—protected a small sliver of the safety net that pregnant patients can count on for care. For the time being, this means that patients in need of emergency abortion care will no longer need to be airlifted out of Idaho, which has been happening since the start of 2024. You would think this decision would be comforting.
It is not.
Instead of doing what it should have done, which was affirm that pregnant people have the same protections as anyone else, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts and left the door open for other extremists to bring this argument again.
(Click here to read more) |
