Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion — the subject of a case pending before the Supreme Court — has become part of a complicated debate on what constitutes a medical emergency urgent enough to necessitate an abortion in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade being overturned.
In arguments before the high court Wednesday, the federal government argued that Idaho’s abortion law is preempted by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, a 1986 law that requires physicians to provide stabilizing care. But the state of Idaho argues that the federal law does not mention abortion in any capacity. They say the Idaho law also creates exceptions for the life of the pregnant person.
That murkiness — between providing stabilizing care for and saving the life of the pregnant person — has had an impact.
