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.

The 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn federal abortion protections continues to be felt.

New research now suggests states where bans have been enacted, including South Dakota, will see fewer workers because of the moves.

The Institute for Women's Policy Research is out with a new study including survey data from 10,000 adults. The authors said one in five respondents planning to have children within the next decade has moved -- or knows someone who has -- to another state because of reproductive care restrictions in their current location.

Melissa Mahoney, senior research economist at the institute, said it shows ban states will likely see some of their workforce talent flow elsewhere.

"The labor markets in states that protect abortion tend to be more welcoming for women with higher wages, greater access to health insurance, also stronger labor force participation," Mahoney outlined.

The findings mirror results from a similar study issued earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

After the Dobbs ruling, when conservative states began enacting bans, officials such as former Gov. Kristi Noem pledged their support for pregnant women and children. Some policy analysts argued Noem's record often fell short in that area.

Mahoney pointed out their research indicates it is not just a problem for state policymakers. She noted businesses should also be worried about a "talent drain," with survey respondents wanting them to prioritize care access.

"Many, in addition, are asking more of their employers in terms of reproductive health care benefits, in terms of speaking out against abortion restrictions in their states," Mahoney observed.

According to the findings, 57% of respondents said they are more likely to apply for or accept a job with reproductive health care benefits as part of the offer. And in South Dakota, 65% of adults think employers should provide financial assistance for child care.


get more stories like this via email

By Rebekah Sager for the Michigan Independent.
Broadcast version by Chrystal Blair for Michigan News Connection reporting for the Michigan Independent-Public News Service Collaboration

The AP reported on Jan. 31 that a grand jury had indicted a doctor in New York on felony charges of criminal abortion for prescribing an abortion medication online for a patient in Louisiana.

The indictment was issued by a grand jury of the Louisiana 18th Judicial District Court for the Parish of West Baton Rouge against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, her New Paltz-based company Nightingale Medical, and the mother of the teen patient, who obtained and administered the medication. Arrest warrants were issued on Jan. 31 for Carpenter and the mother; the mother turned herself in to the police that day.

Louisiana law outlaws abortion completely, with exceptions for the life and health of the pregnant patient.

While 18th Judicial District Attorney Tony Clayton told the AP, "We expect Dr. Carpenter to come to Louisiana and answer to these charges, and if 12 people (a jury) think she's innocent then, let it go," New York's so-called shield law protects Carpenter from extradition, said Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University Law School.

What are shield laws?

Eighteen states, including New York, have laws that protect medical providers from investigation, subpoenas, warrants, and demands for extradition from another state. New York's law says that the governor will not recognize such demands from another state as long as the provider was not physically located in that state when the procedure was carried out.

The law in eight of the 18 states - California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington - specifically protects reproductive health care, regardless of the patient's location.

What happens when a state's shield law is challenged?

Rebouché, who has worked closely with legislators and shield law advocates, said, "I think the long game is to stop mailed medication abortion, which is approved by the FDA as well."

"I think the consequences are, for the providers, I think there is a chilling effect," Rebouché continued. "No one wants to be indicted for a crime. No one wants to be sued for $100,000 and for Dr Carpenter, she can't go to Texas or Louisiana, she can't go to a state that might extradite her to one of those states."

Rebouché explained that in such cases of interstate conflict, each side has the right to pass its own laws. "Typically, states do cooperate," she said. "That's the baseline. But states have rights to also defend people in their jurisdictions."

"Maggie Carpenter is not breaking the law," Rebouché said. "She is complying entirely with New York law. Now, Texas and New York can disagree about what that means, but she, as a doctor, is not breaking the law. ... Almost half the country has got this through its legislature to protect people who are providing reproductive health care."

On Feb. 3, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a law that gives doctors who prescribe abortion medication the right to ask that pharmacies only print the name of their medical practice on the prescription label and not the doctor's name.

"The intent of shield laws is to try to deflect attacks from out of state for providers in state through different levels, criminal, civil, professional discipline, insurance hikes," Rebouché said.

Officials in Louisiana continue to insist that they will prosecute Carpenter. "It is illegal to send abortion pills into this State and it's illegal to coerce another into having an abortion. I have said it before and I will say it again: We will hold individuals accountable for breaking the law," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said on the social media platform X.

Rebouché noted: "Louisiana can and has arrested her for what it claims is a violation of its abortion ban. It has to prove that in a criminal court. ... If Louisiana has prosecutors who are going to go after anybody who's helped somebody, that could have a significant chilling effect."


Rebekah Sager wrote this article for the Michigan Independent.


get more stories like this via email

By Bram Sable-Smith and Katheryn Houghton for KFF Health News.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Big Sky Connection reporting for the KFF Health News-Public News Service Collaboration

In November, Montana voters safeguarded the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. They also elected a new chief justice to the Montana Supreme Court who was endorsed by anti-abortion advocates.

That seeming contradiction is slated to come to a head this year. People on polar sides of the abortion debate are preparing to fight over how far the protection for abortion extends, and the final say will likely come from the seven-person state Supreme Court. With the arrival of new Chief Justice Cory Swanson, who ran as a judicial conservative for the nonpartisan seat and was sworn in Jan. 6, the court now leans more conservative than before the election.

A similar dynamic is at play elsewhere. Abortion rights supporters prevailed on ballot measures in seven of the 10 states where abortion was up for a vote in November. But even with new voter-approved constitutional protections, courts will have to untangle a web of existing state laws on abortion and square them with any new ones legislators approve. The new makeup of supreme courts in several states indicates that the results of the legal fights to come aren’t clear-cut.

Activists have been working to reshape high courts, which in recent years have become the final arbiters of a patchwork of laws regulating abortions. That’s because the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned federal abortion protections, leaving rulemaking to the states.

Since then, the politics of state supreme court elections have been “supercharged” as fights around abortion shifted to states’ top courts, according to Douglas Keith, a senior counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice.

“Because we’re human, you can’t scrub these races of any political connotations at all,” said former Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson. “But it’s getting worse.”

The wave of abortion litigation in state courts has spawned some of the most expensive state supreme court races in history, including more than $42 million spent on the nonpartisan 2023 Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, where abortion access was among the issues facing the court. Janet Protasiewicz won the seat, flipping the balance of the court to a liberal majority.

In many states, judicial elections are nonpartisan but political parties and ideological groups still lobby for candidates. In 2024, abortion surfaced as a top issue in these races.

In Michigan, spending by non-candidate groups alone topped $7.6 million for the two open seats on the state Supreme Court. The Michigan races are officially labeled as nonpartisan, although candidates are nominated by political parties.

An ad for the two candidates backed by Democrats cautioned that “the Michigan state Supreme Court can still take abortion rights away” even after voters added abortion protections to the state constitution in 2022. The ad continued, “Kyra Harris Bolden and Kimberly Thomas are the only Supreme Court candidates who will protect access to abortion.” Both won their races.

Abortion opponent Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, decried the influence of abortion politics on state court elections. “Pro-abortion activists know they cannot win through the legislatures, so they have turned to state courts to override state laws,” Pritchard said.

Some abortion opponents now support changes to the way state supreme courts are selected.

In Missouri, where voters passed a constitutional amendment in November to protect abortion access, the new leader of the state Senate, Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican, has proposed switching to nonpartisan elections from the state’s current model, in which the governor appoints a judge from a list of three finalists selected by a nonpartisan commission. Although Republicans have held the governor’s mansion since 2017, she pointed to the Missouri Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling in September that allowed the abortion amendment to remain on the ballot and said courts “have undermined legislative efforts to protect life.”

In a case widely expected to reach the Missouri Supreme Court, the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics are trying to use the passage of the new amendment to strike down Missouri’s abortion restrictions, including a near-total ban. O’Laughlin said her proposal, which would need approval from the legislature and voters, was unlikely to influence that current litigation but would affect future cases.

“A judiciary accountable to the people would provide a fairer venue for addressing legal challenges to pro-life laws,” she said.

Nonpartisan judicial elections can buck broader electoral trends. In Michigan, for example, voters elected both Supreme Court candidates nominated by Democrats last year even as Donald Trump won the state and Republicans regained control of the state House.

In Kentucky’s nonpartisan race, Judge Pamela Goodwine, who was endorsed by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, outperformed her opponent even in counties that went for Trump, who won the state. She’ll be serving on the bench as a woman’s challenge to the state’s two abortion bans makes its way through state courts.

Partisan judicial elections, however, tend to track with other partisan election results, according to Keith of the Brennan Center. So some state legislatures have sought to turn nonpartisan state supreme court elections into fully partisan affairs.

In Ohio, Republicans have won every state Supreme Court seat since lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 requiring party affiliation to appear on the ballot for those races. That includes three seats up for grabs in November that solidified the Republican majority on the court from 4-3 to 6-1.

“These justices who got elected in 2024 have been pretty open about being anti-abortion,” said Jessie Hill, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, who has been litigating a challenge to Ohio’s abortion restrictions since voters added protections to the state constitution in 2023.

Until the recent ballot measure vote in Montana, the only obstacle blocking Republican-passed abortion restrictions from taking effect had been a 25-year-old decision that determined Montana’s right to privacy extends to abortion.

Nelson, the former justice who was the lead author of the decision, said the court has since gradually leaned more conservative. He noted the state’s other incoming justice, Katherine Bidegaray, was backed by abortion rights advocates.

“The dynamic of the court is going to change,” Nelson said after the election. “But the chief justice has one vote, just like everybody else.”

Swanson, Montana’s new chief justice, had said throughout his campaign that he’ll make decisions case by case. He also rebuked his opponent, Jerry Lynch, for saying he’d respect the court’s ruling that protected abortion. Swanson called such statements a signal to liberal groups.

At least eight cases are pending in Montana courts challenging state laws to restrict abortion access. Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, said that the new constitutional language, which takes effect in July, could further strengthen those cases but that the court’s election outcome leaves room for uncertainty.

The state’s two outgoing justices had past ties to the Democratic Party. Fuller said they also consistently supported abortion as a right to privacy. “One of those folks is replaced by somebody who we don’t know will uphold that,” she said. “There will be this period where we’re trying to see where the different justices fall on these issues.”

Those cases likely won’t end the abortion debate in Montana.

As of the legislative session’s start in early January, Republican lawmakers, who have for years called the state Supreme Court liberal, had already proposed eight bills regarding abortion and dozens of others aimed at reshaping judicial power. Among them is a bill to make judicial elections partisan.

Montana Sen. Daniel Emrich, a Republican who requested a bill titled “Prohibit dismembering of person and provide definition of human,” said it’s too early to know which restrictions anti-abortion lawmakers will push hardest.

Ultimately, he said, any new proposed restrictions and the implications of the constitutional amendment will likely land in front of the state Supreme Court.


Bram Sable-Smith and Katheryn Houghton wrote this story for KFF Health News.


get more stories like this via email