Advertisement
Monday, April 29, 2024
At issue is a clash between federal and state law about how pregnant women must be treated in the emergency room. Specifically, whether a state may ban medical termination of a pregnancy if the woman's health, but not her life, is in grave danger. The case centers on a law enacted in 1986 to stop hospitals from turning away uninsured patients or dumping them on other hospitals. It's known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. The law says that as a condition for receiving Medicare funds, hospital emergency departments must stabilize a patient whose life or health is at risk. If the hospital can't do that, it must provide safe transport to a facility that can. But Idaho and a few other states have now enacted laws that ban emergency abortions unless the mother's life, but not her health, is at risk. |
||
More Alternate links: Google News | Twitter Pummeled with questions, Idaho's Turner refused to commit to which health-threatening conditions could be legally treated with abortions under state law. Could an abortion take place to preserve a woman's organs? Her fertility? To save her from future debilitating kidney disease or strokes? I pointed out when Dobbs was decided that the effect would be the state having control over your organs. The state of Idaho is arguing that the state can dictate which organs a woman must give up to preserve the potential life of a fetus or embryo. I Told You So Comments
Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed. |