This is all very stupid.
We should not, under any circumstances, be in a position where there is an argument in front of the Supreme Court of the United States over whether or not doctors should have to hem and haw over whether or not to provide emergency abortion care in cases where a patient’s health or life is at risk.
Yet, that is exactly where we are.
Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Moyle v. United States, which challenges EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act), a federal law that requires hospitals that receive federal money, as through Medicaid, to provide treatment to people in emergency situations regardless of their ability to pay. At issue is whether or not hospitals in states, like Idaho, that bar doctors from performing emergency abortions unless the patient is right at death’s door are violating the statute, which requires action when one or more bodily functions is seriously at risk. In order to force hospitals to comply, the Biden administration has threatened to defund those hospitals that refuse to provide stabilizing treatment to pregnant people in emergency situations.
Do these laws violate EMTALA? Of course they do. They also make no sense.
It’s only been a few months since Idaho’s abortion ban has been in effect — the one that bars all abortions except in cases where doctors are 1000 percent sure the woman will die without one. It has not been going well! The law has caused confusion for doctors and contributed to a shortage of ob-gyns in the state as well as the closure of several labor and delivery units (because no one wants to work in a state where they could go to prison for providing stabilizing treatment), and put pregnant patients in danger.
As such, a group of 678 physicians (probably all of the physicians left in Idaho, period) signed onto a court filing describing incidents in which they had to send desperate patients home or transfer them out of state so that they could get the lifesaving treatment they needed.
Via NPR:
Those delays and transfers can have consequences. For example, Dr. Emily Corrigan described a patient in court filings whose water broke too early, which put her at risk of infection. After two weeks of being dismissed while trying to get care, the patient went to Corrigan’s hospital – by that time, she showed signs of infection and had lost so much blood she needed a transfusion. Corrigan added that without receiving an abortion, the patient could have needed a limb amputation or a hysterectomy – in other words, even if she didn’t die, she could have faced life-long consequences to her health.
Doctors are literally afraid that they could lose their license or end up in prison for years if, for whatever reason, some court decides that they should have waited until the patient was two seconds away from death instead of three before giving them an abortion.
The most egregiously stupid thing about all of this is that these patients are still going to need abortions. Regardless of what happens, the exact same number of fetuses will die. Absolutely not one goddamned fetus will be saved in the making of this health emergency. We are not talking about situations here in which, “Oh, this might pass, maybe they’ll get unseptic if we just wait a little longer.” The issue is not if, but when. It’s “Do we give this person the standard of care now, or do we wait until there’s some kidney failure happening?”
The idea that doctors should have to wait until a patient is at death’s door to provide them with the standard of care for their situation because it would just make some people who are not involved with this situation in the least and have absolutely zero understanding of it feel a little better about the whole thing is lunacy. Doctors are saying that this law confuses them and that they are afraid to provide stabilizing treatment to those whose conditions require abortions because they don’t want to go to prison or lose their license. Why would anyone choose not to listen to them?
Those who support these laws insist that there is no conflict between EMTALA and the law and that the Biden administration is just trying to rain on their anti-abortion parade and turn emergency rooms into “abortion enclaves in violation of state law.” Ryan Bangert of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is listed as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is providing pro-bono assistance to the state, told NPR that “Idaho law does allow for physicians to make those difficult decisions when it’s necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.”
I get it. These people are simply terrified that there will be some scenario in which an evil whore waits until her ninth month of pregnancy to decide she wants an abortion and heads off to the nearest emergency room to claim that she requires an emergency abortion, and without even bothering to find out what is wrong, the equally evil and bloodthirsty doctors there give her the abortion she wants. Or they’re afraid that they will lose their chance at a miracle. But that is not how anything works. Doctors are not going to perform “abortions” on anyone in cases where the fetus is healthy and viable and no one’s health is in danger. It’s not a thing!
However, if people really do want to prevent later term emergency abortions, they should probably shut their mouths and let those who find out that there is a high risk to their life or health get abortions early on, so that this does not happen. But that, like listening to doctors who say “this law does not comport with how we make these kinds of decisions and puts people’s health at risk,” would make far too much sense.
Unfortunately, given the makeup of the court, it is fairly likely that Idaho and these other states will get their way and that people will die as a result. Guess these Republicans just really love life.
PREVIOUSLY:
