By Mary Anne Franks for Ms. Magazine.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Northern Rockies News Service reporting for the Ms. Magazine-Public News Service Collaboration

People end up in emergency rooms for a variety of reasons. They’re having trouble breathing. They’ve suddenly developed chest pains. They’re bleeding uncontrollably. They’ve fallen off a roof, they’ve crashed their car, they’ve overdosed, they’re suicidal, they got stabbed in a fight, they got shot by police.

Some people who need emergency services are poor, or have no insurance, or are in the country illegally, or have committed a crime. Under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), they are all entitled to receive emergency care. This law is based on a simple principle: Hospitals shouldn’t be allowed to let people die based on who they are, how much they can pay, or what they have done.

On April 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Moyle v. U.S., a case that will determine whether individual states are allowed to exclude a single group from this basic protection: pregnant women. The state of Idaho claims that it has the right to forbid pregnant women and girls—and only pregnant women and girls—from receiving emergency care that could save their lives.

How, and why, would a state want to do this?

First, the how: In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs that forced childbirth does not violate the Constitution. This allowed Idaho’s 2020 “Defense of Life Act,” a draconian anti-abortion law, to go into effect. According to the law, anyone who performs an abortion faces imprisonment of up to five years in prison. Healthcare professionals who perform abortions will also have their professional licenses suspended or revoked permanently.

This puts the state law directly in conflict with federal emergency care law. EMTALA requires Medicare-funded hospitals (which most hospitals are) to provide medically necessary stabilizing treatment to any patient with an “emergency medical condition.” An emergency medical condition is one that, in the absence of immediate medical attention, is likely to cause “serious impairment to bodily functions,” “serious dysfunction of any bodily organ,” or otherwise puts the health of the patient “in serious jeopardy.”

Pregnancy complications are a common reason for emergency care visits, and the medically necessary stabilizing treatment necessary to prevent serious injury or death to women and girls experiencing those complications sometimes includes the termination of the pregnancy.

Given that an abortion is sometimes the only medical treatment that will prevent death or serious bodily injury to women, a more accurate title for Idaho’s abortion law would be the “Let Women Die Act.” But as seen in the majority decision in Dobbs and the arguments propounded recently by the Alliance Defending Freedom in the mifepristone access case, forced birth proponents are rarely candid about their necropolitical agenda. Defenders of Idaho’s law instead feign outrage at the suggestion that the law will kill women, pointing to the law’s exception for abortions performed by a physician who “determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Idaho insists that the law’s exception for abortions necessary to save the life of the mother means that there is no conflict between it and federal law. But as the Department of Justice pointed out when it sued to stop the Idaho law from being enforced with regard to EMTALA’s requirements, federal law requires emergency medical care necessary to prevent serious injury, not just death. The federal law does not authorize the withholding of essential medical treatment to patients who are only close to, but have not yet arrived, at death’s door.

What is more, as countless medical professionals have attested, the line between serious bodily injury or death is rarely precise. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to predict the exact moment that a serious medical condition becomes a life-threatening one.

As the National Women’s Law Center detailed in its amicus brief in the case, “No clinical bright line defines when a patient’s condition crosses the lines of this continuum. At what point does the condition of a pregnant woman with a uterine hemorrhage deteriorate from health-threatening to the point that an abortion is ‘necessary’ to prevent death? When is it certain she will die but for medical intervention? How many blood units does she have to lose? One? Two? Five? How fast does she have to be bleeding?”

The recognition that serious bodily injury and death are so closely related as to be nearly indistinguishable has long been reflected in U.S. law. At common law, a person could be convicted of murder not only if he intended to kill but also if he intended to inflict “grievous bodily injury.” The law of self-defense generally allows a person to use deadly force when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, not only to herself but to others.

Significantly, Idaho’s self-defense law specifies that a person is not required to wait for the danger to become fully apparent before acting: “The defense of self or of another does not require a person to wait until he or she ascertains whether the danger is apparent or real. A person confronted with such danger has a clear right to act upon appearances such as would influence the action of a reasonable person.”

Unless, of course, the person in danger is a pregnant woman.


Mary Anne Franks wrote this article for Ms. Magazine.

Former President Donald Trump claims abortion will be "a very small issue" for voters this November but New Hampshire Democrats disagree.

Two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion remains accessible in the state up to 24 weeks with exceptions, although the GOP-led Senate blocked an effort to legally protect those rights earlier this year.

Kathleen Sullivan, former chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, is convinced voters will not forget.

"It's an issue in our governor's race, an issue in our legislative races," Sullivan observed. "It's going to continue to be a major issue in New Hampshire and, I think, across the country."

Trump said he supports the rights of states to make their own policies. A recent poll of New Hampshire voters finds abortion ranks third in importance behind the economy and immigration.

Abortion-rights amendments will be on the ballot in at least six states this election. Signatures have been submitted for ballot measures in at least four more. Already, voters in six other states have overwhelmingly backed abortion rights since Roe v. Wade was overturned, including conservative-leaning Kansas.

Sullivan said her party's nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris and her strong support of reproductive rights has reignited Democrats' enthusiasm for the race.

"It was like a tonic, I think, everybody just got very excited," Sullivan noted. "There's just a real burst of energy among not only young people, but all voters for the Harris-Waltz ticket."

Sullivan added there has been an increase in small-dollar donations to the state party and volunteers. Trump held a slight lead over President Joe Biden in New Hampshire prior to his decision to leave the race. In some polls, Harris now leads Trump by at least four points.

A Wyoming district judge is expected to decide a case over a state law which would ban abortions with few exceptions.

The "Life is a Human Right Act" claims abortion is not health care but it could contradict a constitutional amendment Wyoming voters passed in 2012, largely in opposition to Obama's Affordable Care Act, which reads: "Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions."

Marcie Kindred, field organizer and communications director for the group Wyoming United for Freedom, said Wyomingites have long valued limited government.

"We have always been a traditional live and let live state," Kindred explained. "These complex, deeply personal health care decisions belong only to women, their doctors, their families and their chosen faith."

The state supreme court declined to hear the case in April. The same district judge deciding this case will also decide on Gov. Gordon's first-in-the-country measure to ban abortion pills.

Wyoming United for Freedom was formed at the end of last year, Kindred noted, when other abortion advocacy groups were overwhelmed with work following the overturning of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion.

Abortion access will not be on the Wyoming ballot this November but Kindred pointed out the group is preparing for action in several scenarios, including if the judge decides the constitution protects the right to abortion.

"We will still need to organize to defend against attacks on reproductive freedom from our legislature," Kindred stressed. "And make sure that we are electing people that will protect those rights."

In Wyoming, citizens can initiate amendments to state statutes but only the legislature has the power to introduce measures to change the state's constitution. Opponents of abortion rights want to see the Dobbs case upheld.


get more stories like this via email

Vice President Kamala Harris focused on reproductive rights at a campaign event in Michigan Wednesday.

Her remarks come as President Joe Biden has fallen behind former President Donald Trump in the state, according to the latest polls. In front of a crowd of hundreds, Harris stressed abortion rights are at risk if Republicans win in November. She said Biden has vowed to veto any attempts to ban abortion nationwide.

"We believe in freedom. Freedom from the government telling us what to do about matters of heart and home," Harris explained. "We believe in the right of people to make basic decisions, like when and if they will start a family and how."

Meanwhile, Trump's pick for vice president, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, has supported national abortion bans and opposed exceptions for rape and incest. Democrats are hoping the distinction will lead them to a victory this year in the key battleground state of Michigan. It was a critical issue for voters in 2022, when Gov. Gretchen Whitmer won her reelection race easily and both chambers of the state legislature flipped to Democrats for the first time in decades.

In her speech, Harris condemned political violence following the recent attempted shooting of Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania political rally. She also praised the gun safety measures Michigan lawmakers passed in recent years, including universal background checks and safe storage requirements. She added politicians in Washington, D.C., should favor similar laws.

"The solutions don't really require that much creativity," Harris asserted. "What they do require is people in the United States Congress to have courage to act and do what we know is the right thing to do and not cower, based on special interests and powerful lobbyists."

One Michigan Democrat in Congress, Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Grand Rapids, has called on Biden to drop out of the presidential race over concerns about his age and cognitive ability. Harris would likely be a top replacement choice in the race against Trump.


get more stories like this via email