The Emergency Medical Treatment Act was created because patients were actually turned away from emergency rooms around the country, some left to die on their doorstep, because they couldn’t pay for treatments. The federal government created a law that made it impossible to be so ruthless.
Passed by Congress in 1986, it required hospital emergency departments that accept payments from Medicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination for anyone seeking treatment for a medical condition regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.
Once stabilized they could be moved to a hospital for indigent care or wherever else was appropriate, but not until they were safe.
Apparently, some states believe being pregnant negates that right. Medical care for women in dire straits were not provided because of laws that make defining the exact moment she’s dying the only reason they can intervene. Otherwise, they face being thrown in jail. In response the federal government made clear, regardless of individual state abortion laws, when it comes to emergency medical treatment no woman can be denied care.
What sounds so reasonable and easy to achieve is now before the Supreme Court. The question of a pregnant woman’s right to care was actually challenged.
In Idaho, a state with a full ban on abortions except when the mother’s life is at risk, just argued in front of the Supreme Court that their state law denying any intervention to save a pregnant woman’s life at the cost of the fetus they are carrying supersedes the federal law. That’s what the majority of justices stated when they rescinded all our rights when they overturned Roe V Wade and “gave it back to the states to decide.” Now we live under fifty different abortion laws.
As a result, some states are actually arguing a women’s right to survive, to be medically treated, no longer exists once she becomes a pregnant. And only when proven beyond a shadow of a doubt her life would end can emergency measures be taken.
Idaho’s law allows physicians to terminate pregnancies only to save the life of the mother, adding specifically – not to preserve her health. If a politician deems you made the wrong decision, you’re looking at 2-5 years in prison.
And we all know how easy it is to prove a negative.
Apparently in 2024, women’s healthcare doesn’t even deserve to be “preserved.”
Idaho felt so strongly about this they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. They not only agreed to hear the case but encouraged arguments like Justice Alito proffered, that under the Emergency Medical Act, fetuses have the same rights as the mother, claiming the emergency medical act also covered stabilizing and protecting the fetus at all costs.
“Have you ever seen an abortion statute that uses the phrase unborn child?” Alito asked, saying performing an abortion would be antithetical to the duty to provide a fetus with stabilizing treatment. “It seems that the plain meaning is that the hospital must try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child but performing abortion is antithetical to that duty,”
The same man who quoted as a legal authority a seventeenth century judge in his majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, who believed woman were their husband’s property and burned them as witches.
Have we now proclaimed a life that hasn’t even started supersedes the mother?
When did having a fertilized womb take away all rights to survive?
This is not about being pro-choice. This is about pro-life- for the mother. These women wanted their unborn children. Their joy and happiness turned into a nightmare made worse by cruel and heartless lawmakers when they were found to have malformed fetuses, threatened miscarriages, bleeding, infection, or a variety of other issues. Now, the mother’s health is all that matters. But not in Idaho.
The Supreme Court allowed Idaho’s ban to stand until their decision is released.
These are the decisions we are now facing in 2024 in the United States of America.
Who could’ve imagined just a few years ago, that the fate of all women’s health and welfare would be in the hands of a few politicians.
In a Time magazine article released this week, Donald Trump made clear if elected, he supports the GOP caucus “Life at conception measure.” that would grant full legal rights to embryos. And states’ rights to monitor and prosecute women who get an abortion after the ban.
Now it’s up to us. Votes chose those representatives. In November we have the chance to use our voices to pick those that support the majority’s viewpoint – woman’s bodies are off limits.
Petitions to get a referendum on the November ballot to enshrine women’s rights are available in multiple states. If you’re willing to just let the question be asked, please check out the link below.
You can find a petition to sign and pretty much anything else you might want regarding the initiative at Arizona for Abortion Access (there is a button towards the top of the page that will take you to options all over the state).
The Arizona House and Senate just passed a bill to rescind the 1864 abortion ban. but it doesn’t go into effect for months. How many women will be harmed in the interim? Dozens of legislatures voted to keep Arizona women under this barbaric ban. We can decide how we feel about their votes at the ballot box in November.
-https://www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1246990306/more-emergency-flights-for-pregnant-patients–in-idaho
-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305897/#:~:text=The%20law’s%20initial%20intent%20was,or%20stability%20for%20the%20transfer.
-https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/justice-alito-voices-support-for-fetal-rights-in-federal-law#
-https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/asia/abortion-lord-matthew-hale.html
-https://apnews.com/article/arizona-abortion-1864-ban-repeal-lawmakers-84b0cd9a8c44ddaefed2c45e9eff1c79
-https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-abortion-idaho
-https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-medical-emergencies-idaho-8ca89d7de0c1fa9256dcd27d1847e144
-https://time.com/6972022/donald-trump-transcript-2024-election/
-https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/asia/abortion-lord-matthew-hale.html