Washington DC, one day before the ruling in the case of United States v. Idaho, Many doctors hoped that last week’s Supreme Court decision regarding emergency care of pregnant women would provide the clarity they need to do their jobs.Shortly after the Court announced its decision, Ruth Marcus, a political commentator, texted this message: “Don’t be confused by the Idaho abortion case. This isn’t a win for pregnant women. It’s likely a temporary reprieve, and just for some.
But instead of issuing a definitive ruling, the Supreme Court returned the matter to lower courts. It also lifted its stay of a lower-court ruling that will allow, for now, emergency abortions at Idaho hospitals to be done if neccessary to protect the health of the mother.to the Court's handling of the case, and read parts of her dissenting opinion from the bench: “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay,” she wrote.
Texas and Idaho embrace the notion that abortion does not fall under EMTALA’s protections because it is not explicitly mentioned in the statute. Last January, the U.S. 5Circuit Court of Appeals – widely considered the most conservative in the nation - agreed, noting that EMTALA “does not mandate any specific type of medical treatment, let alone abortion.”
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: HoustonPress - 🏆 314. / 61 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »