By Caroline Kitchener and Dan Diamond, The Washington PostKelsie Norris-De La Cruz was experiencing a dangerous pregnancy-related complication when one hospital turned her away because of Texas's abortion ban.
If the justices had protected emergency abortions outright, she said, “I would have felt like I had a tool … power over my own body and my own life.”The Supreme Court ruling provides temporary relief for doctors in Idaho, the state at the center of the legal challenge. But justices chose not to answer the larger question of whether the four-decade-old EMTALA compels medical providers nationwide to offer abortions when a physician deems it necessary to stabilize a pregnant woman.
Georgia’s six-week abortion ban includes exceptions for medical emergencies and “medically futile” pregnancies — but, Verma said, the implementation of The Supreme Court ruling offered Idaho doctors a temporary reprieve, again allowing them to offer abortions when a physician determines that a woman’s health is at risk.
The back-and-forth has been an extremely taxing “roller coaster,” Thomson said — so turbulent, she added, that many OB/GYNs in Idaho have recently chosen to leave the state. “We feel pretty strongly that we’re going to win this case in the end,” Labrador said. He also insisted that there are protections for performing an abortion in Idaho when a woman’s life is in jeopardy.
Health Health Latest News, Health Health Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: ksatnews - 🏆 442. / 53 Read more »
Source: AP - 🏆 728. / 51 Read more »