Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Commercial property taxes dropped by $122 million in the south and southwest suburbs, while residential taxes jumped 20 percent
Next Post: Unclear on the concept (Updated)
Posted in:
* Click here for the ruling. AP…
The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions, for now, in a procedural ruling that left key questions unanswered and could mean the issue ends up before the conservative-majority court again soon. […]
The opinion means the Idaho case will continue to play out in lower courts, and could end up before the Supreme Court again. It doesn’t answer key questions about whether doctors can provide emergency abortions elsewhere, a pressing issue as most Republican-controlled states have moved to restrict the procedure in the two years since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade.
* The AP in April…
One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.
Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.
The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.
“It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care — this is inconceivable.”
* From Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent…
In any event, the representations Idaho’s counsel made during oral argument and in the State’s briefs filed in this Court are not a definitive interpretation of Idaho law. That authority remains with the Idaho Supreme Court, which has never endorsed the State’s position. To the contrary, the Idaho Supreme Court has emphasized that, to avoid criminal liability, a doctor must subjectively believe that an abortion is necessary to prevent death. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. State, 171 Idaho 374, 445– 446, 522 P. 3d 1132, 1203–1204 (2023). And that is to say nothing of local prosecutors, who may not be aware of (or care about) Idaho’s newfound interpretation of its abortion ban, and who are highly incentivized to enforce the law to the hilt. See Idaho Code Ann. §63–3642 (Supp. 2023) (withholding funding from local governments if their officials decline to enforce Idaho felony laws, which include these felony abortion laws); see also Brief for Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 14–24 (discussing myriad ways in which state and local officials in Idaho have targeted physicians). Still, some of my colleagues latch onto the bald representations of Idaho’s counsel, using them as an escape hatch that justifies our dispensing with having to issue a merits ruling in these cases. […]
After today, there will be a few months—maybe a few years—during which doctors may no longer need to airlift pregnant patients out of Idaho. As J USTICE K AGAN emphasizes, portions of Idaho’s law will be preliminarily enjoined (at least for now). Ante, at 2, 4. But having not heard from this Court on the ultimate pre-emption issue, Idaho’s doctors will still have to decide whether to provide emergency medical care in the midst of highly charged legal circumstances with no guarantee that this fragile detente over the State’s categorical prohibitions will be maintained. Cf. ante, at 8 (BARRETT, J., concurring) (“Even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho’s ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact”).
So, to be clear: Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price. Because we owe them—and the Nation—an answer to the straightforward pre-emption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent.
* The General Assembly passed a bill in May preparing for a ruling against ER abortions, and shored up protections in Illinois. HB581 has been sent to the governor…
Hospitals shall furnish hospital emergency services, including as described in subsections (b-1) and (b-2), in accordance with the procedures required by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), including, but not limited to, medical screening, the provision of necessary stabilizing treatment, procedures for refusals to consent, restricting transfers until the individual is stabilized, appropriate transfers of patients, nondiscrimination, no delay in examination or treatment, and whistleblower protections. […]
For purposes of this Act, “stabilizing treatment” includes abortion when abortion is necessary to resolve the patient’s injury or acute medical condition that is liable to cause death or severe injury or serious illness. The amendments to this Section are declarative of existing law.
* Governor JB Pritzker…
Following an order by the U.S. Supreme Court that the lower court’s preliminary injunction will take effect in Idaho, temporarily preventing the state from enforcing its ban on abortion in emergency situations, Illinois Governor and Think Big America Founder JB Pritzker released the following statement:
“The brutal treatment of women under the MAGA extremist abortion bans is cruel and unAmerican. Today’s ruling offers a small respite from some of the harshest outcomes, but it is not the broad protection that women and healthcare professionals are owed. In states across the country, because of Trump’s Supreme Court, women will still be denied reproductive care they need and deserve. Remember what this case was about: Republicans were fighting to let hospitals refuse care for dying women. The anti-abortion extremists were never stopping at abortion bans - they want to ban contraception and IVF, and take away hard-won women’s rights. The only way to stop their attack on our freedoms is to defeat them at the ballot box in November.”
* Planned Parenthood Illinois…
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) has protected people’s right to access emergency medical care including abortion for over 40 years. EMTALA has protected people’s right to access emergency abortion care in states where abortion is banned. Attributed to Jennifer Welch, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois:
“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to continue the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which has protected people’s right to access emergency abortion for over 40 years. While this decision temporarily allows people to access emergency abortion care, this case will continue in the lower courts and may jeopardize the health and safety of patients across our country.
In Illinois, the General Assembly passed an Illinois Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which protects people’s right to access emergency reproductive care regardless of what happens at the federal level. Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) is heartbroken that people living in abortion deserts facing complications in their pregnancy may still be forced to endure unnecessary pain and health complications.
Since Roe was overturned on June 24, 2022, PPIL has seen patients from 41 different states forced to travel to Illinois for abortion care. Our doors are open to provide essential reproductive care including abortion to everyone regardless of their zip code. We continue to fight for everyone to access the health care they need and deserve.”
* Related…
[Rich Miller contributed to this post.]
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 11:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Commercial property taxes dropped by $122 million in the south and southwest suburbs, while residential taxes jumped 20 percent
Next Post: Unclear on the concept (Updated)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I will never understand the logic of pro choice people. The baby isn’t the “woman’s body.” It’s a separate living being. Abortion isn’t healthcare, because pregnancy is not a disease.
Comment by James Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:03 pm
Thank you very much, Isabel, for this coverage.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:04 pm
==It’s a separate living being.==
“Separate”, therein lies the rub.
Comment by don the legend Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:18 pm
===Abortion isn’t healthcare===
So you are saying you like high maternal mortality rates, lots of dead women? Thanks for clarifying.
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:27 pm
Jackson’s dissent is exactly correct. It makes zero strategic sense that Kagan and Sotomayor would let the Republican justices punt this until after the election. Yet another own goal by ‘liberal’ legal institutionalists.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:33 pm
James -
Since when is health care only for “disease”? A broken leg isn’t a disease - should surgeons be forced to wait until gangrene to set it?
Viruses are also separate living beings. Should we not treat patients suffering from the common cold?
Pregnancy can bring with it all sorts of unforseen issues, and in some of those cases, the only option to save the mother’s life - or to preserve any quality of life - is abortion. That may be a horrible consequence but it doesn’t make it untrue. Why should doctors be forced to “treat” the patient not in front of them at the expense of the patient laying on their table, especially since doing so may cause both irreparable harm?
It’s just not as simple as your sophomoric stance claims it is.
Comment by Concerned Observer Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:34 pm
@James
Healthcare exists for reasons other than disease.
I think your failure to understand is based on pretty simple misunderstandings of where embryos exist. Here’s a hint: they aren’t separate from the mother.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:36 pm
- I will never understand -
I would imagine there are nearly infinite sentences you could begin the same way.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 12:38 pm
Back when I was a pro-lifer, I did understand. I knew that pro-choicers weren’t pro-death and pro-lifers weren’t anti-choice. They’re not necessarily opposites.
I still feel that way. I believe most people have good intentions when it comes to this but now I err on the side of the person going through the experience.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 1:23 pm
===I will never understand the logic of pro choice people. The baby isn’t the “woman’s body.” It’s a separate living being. Abortion isn’t healthcare, because pregnancy is not a disease. ===
It is quite obvious you have never been pregnant. It is not a process anyone should have to undergo if they are unwilling.
All three of my pregnancies were very wanted. It was still a miserable, horrible, dangerous experience. I had to be hospitalized repeatedly during my second pregnancy. I almost died during my third. I threw up 30 times a day, every day, for nine months, every single time — and that was with the drugs to stop the vomiting reducing the amount. And even when I wasn’t spending two hours vomiting my guts out and unable to stop the violent retching even once my stomach was completely empty, I was uncomfortable all the time. I couldn’t even go grocery shopping because I kept vomiting in the store. I had an organ fail. My teeth are permanently ruined. I almost died in transit to the hospital with my third due to a ruptured uterus — and I was then unable to get contraceptive care from the only hospital in the area, which was Catholic, even though both I and the fetus would die if I got pregnant again.
And that’s a best-case scenario where I wanted to be pregnant and had great health care.
Comment by Suburban Mom Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 1:26 pm
Hey James, how many kidneys do you have? Serious question.
Comment by Suburban Mom Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 1:27 pm
Maybe I missed this, and that is on me, but Mary Miller signed a letter months ago opposing the expansion of IVF into the VA - https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/ivf-veterans-house-republicans-freedom-caucus
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 1:30 pm
Of course anti-abortion people don’t see abortion as healthcare. They are trying to force women to the “back alley.” Next time they need a medical procedure, certainly they’ll go to “Jim the mechanic.” /s Thankfully Illinois is here and ready to help women and their families seeking true healthcare that is now denied to millions.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 1:45 pm
==I will never understand the logic of pro choice people.==
I’ll never understand the logic of people like you either. So I guess we’re even. Bottom line is that it’s none of your business. Why people like you think you have a right to insert yourself into the medical decisions “I’ll never understand.”
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 1:51 pm
@James - you also have to understand different faiths have different definitions of when a person is a person. In my faith, Judaism, a baby isn’t a life until birth. They are holier than nothing during pregnancy but not a full born life. And I am not a Rabbi, but that is what I have been tought. Christian theology should not always dictate what public policy should be nor, should any other faith.
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 2:37 pm
Can a person be compelled by the state to give a kidney in order to save the life of a person? Nope. Yet we demand that women jeopardize their health and/or lives to save something significantly less conscious than a grown human with a name and a life. How do we reconcile that?
Comment by Retired School Board Member Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 3:43 pm
Anyone remember when hb581 came up for vote this year, how the rep doctor so confidently declared on the house floor how he had never seen the need for an emergency abortion in his experience as an emergency room doctor, therefore there was no need for the bill?
Comment by soccer mom Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 4:23 pm
@Rahm’s Parking Meter–Ironically, this extreme ideology wasn’t a traditional part of Christian theology until conservatives latched onto it as a potential wedge issue during the 20th century; historically, the view has been much more nuanced, with preference given to the life of the mother, and remains so in more mainstream versions of Christianity.
Comment by Crispy Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 5:18 pm