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.

A majority of South Dakotans have voted to maintain a strict abortion ban but other factors are shifting the landscape for reproductive care in the state.

Of the 10 states voting on abortion during the 2024 election, South Dakota was one of three to keep a ban in place.

Kim Floren, director of the Justice through Empowerment Network, which provides financial assistance to people seeking abortions, said the state's view on the issue is not new but concern is growing over how the federal government may affect reproductive rights.

"I'm feeling the panic from people who are in areas that maybe haven't experienced what we've experienced as far as barriers go," Floren noted. "The reality is that we as a community can figure out how to take care of one another."

The Justice through Empowerment Network provides assistance with travel and transportation, child care, lodging, interpreters, birth control and medical procedure funding. Floren pointed out the organization supports 30 to 40 people per month. The final tally for Amendment G, which would have established a right to abortion in the state's constitution, was 41% for and 59% against.

South Dakotans voted in 2006 and 2008 against near-total abortion bans but Floren stressed since then, President-elect Donald Trump's first term made people feel "emboldened to be more vocal." Still, she acknowledged his second term will begin in a different context than his first.

"Before Dobbs, we did not have all of these reliable, safe websites where you can order abortion pills from and have them sent to your house for extremely cheap," Floren observed. "In some ways, access here has gotten better."

Floren added Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota will return to his post after running for vice president on the Democratic ticket. Walz in 2023 signed a bill protecting patients who travel to Minnesota for abortion care and their providers from legal penalties in other states.


get more stories like this via email

It is now up to Wisconsin Supreme Court justices to decide the fate of an abortion law from the mid-1800s.

A circuit court determined last year an 1849 law does not apply to "medically consented" abortions in Wisconsin. The high court heard arguments Monday about whether a 1985 state law overrides the older one, allowing abortions before the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb.

Jenny Higgins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said while the impact of this case is critically important, even if the 1849 law is determined to be unenforceable, returning to the status quo would mean a dire landscape for abortion access.

"Even though abortion is technically available at clinics in Wisconsin right now, it's heavily restricted," Higgins explained. "Because of insurance and Medicaid prohibitions, people have to pay out-of-pocket for a service that should be covered by insurance."

The 1849 law, which was brought to light after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, prompted a statewide freeze on abortion services for more than a year. Higgins noted if Wisconsin's high court rules the law still applies today, the state would be looking at another abortion freeze.

Abortion access disproportionately affects those who are already the most marginalized, Higgins pointed out. She noted while people from all walks of life may find themselves needing abortion care, factors like poverty and racism make it much harder for some to achieve reproductive autonomy, compared to those with more economic and social resources.

"Those effects make it much harder for folks to be able to access contraceptive care, be in relationships that are stable and healthy and communicative, to be able to see past the end of the day into one's future if you are, again, mostly focused on your own economic scarcity or figuring out how to feed your kids, or figuring out how not to get evicted," Higgins outlined.

The 1976 Hyde Amendment, established three years after Roe v. Wade, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion. Higgins hopes federal lawmakers will focus more on this amendment when considering the barriers to abortion care.


get more stories like this via email

Strong reactions are pouring in from both sides as Missouri voters made history by adding abortion rights to the state constitution.

The decision to pass Amendment 3, the "Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative," makes Missouri the first state to overturn a near-total statewide abortion ban. Advocates and opponents are now gearing up for future battles.

Jamie Morris, executive director and general counsel of the Missouri Catholic Conference in Jefferson City, said he is disappointed with the passage of the amendment but emphasized his organization's pride in the conference's efforts, despite limited resources, and vowed the fight is not over.

"From the church's perspective, win or lose, we were going to continue to advocate for policy to help address the needs of women to help them choose life to begin with," Morris explained. "So that not only you're dealing with, necessarily, the supply of abortion, but also the demand."

In addition to abortion rights, Amendment 3 protects access to contraception and reproductive health services.

Meanwhile, pro-choice advocates in Missouri including Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are celebrating the passage of the amendment, while filing a lawsuit to block some restrictions, including parental consent for minors and continued regulatory oversight of abortion services.

Maggie Olivia, senior policy manager for the advocacy group Abortion Action Missouri, applauded the vote.

"I could not be more proud of the first steps that we are taking together as Missourians to dismantle the decades of political infringements on our access to abortion and, frankly, all reproductive care," Olivia stressed.

Missouri was among nine states with abortion rights measures on the 2024 general election ballot. Amendment 3 takes effect Dec. 5.


get more stories like this via email