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.

Birth doulas across Arkansas have formed a new organization to improve maternal health care across the state and help pass legislation they hope will make doula services accessible to more families.

Doulas are members of a birthing team providing emotional, physical and educational support to expectant mothers.

Cora Crain, cofounder and board vice president of the Doula Alliance of Arkansas, said research shows doula services can reduce cesarean sections, premature deliveries and length of labor.

"We have people reaching out to us. This is their first time they don't know what they don't know," Crain explained. "It's all very overwhelming. There's definitely a certain amount of fear that a lot of people are bringing to the birth experience and then of course if you had a doula in your previous birth then you usually continue."

Doulas provide services during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum.

Members of the alliance are supporting a bill before state legislators next year mandating insurance companies and Medicaid to cover doula costs. Crain noted if passed, the legislation will make services available to more expectant mothers.

"Doula services can be so important in getting healthier outcomes and also just more positive experiences that lead to more positive postpartum times," Crain emphasized. "But it's just not as accessible to so many women that can't afford that out-of-pocket expense. "

Arkansas has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the nation.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsin law bans telemedicine abortion care, yet new data show an increasing number of Wisconsinites have been getting abortion pills through shield law providers.

An 1800s Wisconsin law caused a temporary statewide ban on abortion services after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Jenny Higgins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of the UW Collaborative for Reproductive Equity, said even after the ban was lifted in 2023, demand for abortion pills in Wisconsin remained high.

"Suggesting that even when brick-and-mortar facilities are offering abortion care in our state, telehealth abortion still is a really important service that many people in our state are taking advantage of through these shield laws," Higgins explained.

There have been about 130 orders for abortion pills per month made through shield law providers since July 2023, according to WeCount data. There have also been reports of stockpiling nationwide since the election. In a recent interview, President-elect Donald Trump said he would "probably" not restrict medication abortion pills during his second term.

With only four abortion clinics statewide, 96% of Wisconsin counties do not have an abortion provider and about 70% of Wisconsinites of reproductive age live in a county without an abortion clinic.

Higgins noted while shield law clinicians provide critical and affordable care to Wisconsinites who grapple with numerous restrictions to abortion, attempts to criminalize both providers and patients are expected, with Black and brown patients at the highest risk.

"We know historically that Black and brown women are the most likely to be criminalized during pregnancy, whether that pregnancy is ending in abortion or birth," Higgins pointed out. "I think we need to pay great attention to the ways in which some of the pregnant people with the least social power could be putting themselves at risk."

She added barriers to care must also be recognized, including distance to brick-and-mortar facilities, state insurance prohibitions affecting affordability and negative past health care experiences.

Another 1800s law could come into play under the new administration, although about 70% of Americans have never heard of it. Project 2025 directs the use of portions of the Comstock Act to criminalize abortion, while some state attorneys general have already asked courts to make mailing abortion pills illegal under the act.


get more stories like this via email

Voters across the country approved a majority of measures in November to affirm abortion rights and supporters of an initiative to legalize abortion in Idaho said they are feeling momentum.

Voters approved seven of 10 state abortion-rights measures, including in Montana. A Florida measure received a majority of votes but did not reach the state's 60% threshold for passage.

In Idaho, pro-choice advocates are waiting for approval to collect signatures on a 2026 measure which would allow access to abortion until viability of the fetus.

Melanie Folwell, executive director of Idahoans United for Women and Families, is leading the effort.

"If there's anything that was very clear in November's election, it's that abortion amendments and abortion laws -- laws that expand access to reproductive options -- do well at the ballot, even in very 'red' states," Folwell asserted.

Idaho is one of six states with a near-total abortion ban. Folwell noted her organization is awaiting approval from the attorney general's office and could start collecting signatures by the end of January.

However, unlike many other states allowing voter initiatives to amend the state constitution, Idaho does not. If approved for the ballot, the abortion access measure would mean passing legislation, which in turn means legislators could repeal it. Folwell argued it is unfortunate, when people have been telling lawmakers since Roe v. Wade was overturned about the negative effects of banning abortion.

"They've heard from doctors, they've heard from health care systems, they've heard from patients themselves -- from women who have suffered needlessly as a result of these laws -- and they've done nothing," Folwell observed. "They've had two legislative sessions to do something. They've done nothing. And we think there's an imperative to just take this question to the people."

If the measure is approved to collect signatures, it would need 6% of signatures from registered voters from at least 18 of the state's 35 legislative districts, a total of about 70,000 signatures before April 30, 2026.


get more stories like this via email