of the term on Wednesday, this one focused on how states can regulate emergency abortions – exceedingly rare procedures that often save a woman’s life or her future fertility.
However, if the court finds in favor of anti-abortion states, it could upend emergency care for millions of pregnant women and undermine the federal government’s ability to regulate emergency medicine.The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a federal law that requires doctors and hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to patients facing serious threats to life and limb, regardless of their ability to pay, or lose federal funding.
This requirement directly conflicts with Idaho’s abortion ban, which only allows doctors to terminate a pregnancy to prevent death. Otherwise, doctors could face prosecution and loss of their medical license.Idaho’s law? Lawyers for Idaho say there is no conflict. Because doctors must work within the bounds of state licensing boards, Idaho’s attorneys said they could comply with Emtala by simply following Idaho’s imminent death standard.
“Idaho has directly interfered with the ability of hospitals to accept these federal funds and fulfill Congress’s desire that no matter where you are in this country you can go to an ER and be stabilized,” said Prelogar.
Source: Healthcare Press (healthcarepress.net)
Australia Latest News, Australia Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: GuardianAus - 🏆 1. / 98 Read more »
Source: SkyNewsAust - 🏆 7. / 78 Read more »
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »
Source: 9NewsAUS - 🏆 10. / 72 Read more »
Source: GuardianAus - 🏆 1. / 98 Read more »