Advertisement
Singapore markets closed
  • Straits Times Index

    3,224.01
    -27.70 (-0.85%)
     
  • Nikkei

    40,369.44
    +201.37 (+0.50%)
     
  • Hang Seng

    16,541.42
    +148.58 (+0.91%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    7,952.62
    +20.64 (+0.26%)
     
  • Bitcoin USD

    70,200.76
    -578.12 (-0.82%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    885.54
    0.00 (0.00%)
     
  • S&P 500

    5,254.35
    +5.86 (+0.11%)
     
  • Dow

    39,807.37
    +47.29 (+0.12%)
     
  • Nasdaq

    16,379.46
    -20.06 (-0.12%)
     
  • Gold

    2,254.80
    +16.40 (+0.73%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    83.11
    -0.06 (-0.07%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    4.2060
    +0.0100 (+0.24%)
     
  • FTSE Bursa Malaysia

    1,536.07
    +5.47 (+0.36%)
     
  • Jakarta Composite Index

    7,288.81
    -21.28 (-0.29%)
     
  • PSE Index

    6,903.53
    +5.36 (+0.08%)
     

Justice Department sues Idaho over its near-total abortion ban

The Justice Department on Tuesday sued the state of Idaho in its first formal attempt to push back, legally, against the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — the 1973 ruling that until June secured the constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

In the lawsuit filed in Idaho federal court, the Justice Department alleges that the state’s near-total ban on abortions, slated to go into effect Aug. 25, directly conflicts with a federal law requiring Medicare-funded hospitals to provide emergency patients with “necessary stabilizing treatment.” The law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), says a hospital may not transfer or discharge a patient until stabilization is ensured.

During a press conference held Tuesday to announce the lawsuit, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the action is part of the Justice Department’s efforts to protect and advance reproductive freedom in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision overturning of Roe v. Wade.

“We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that pregnant women get the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law,” Garland said.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland takes questions following the announcement of the Justice Department's first affirmative litigation to protect access to reproductive healthcare following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, at the Department of Justice in Washington, U.S., August 2, 2022.REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland takes questions following the announcement of the Justice Department's first affirmative litigation to protect access to reproductive healthcare following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, at the Department of Justice in Washington, U.S., August 2, 2022.REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein (Evelyn Hockstein / reuters)

According to the lawsuit, under Idaho’s forthcoming law that outlaws nearly all elective abortions, doctors and other health care providers in Medicare-funded hospitals would be forced in certain circumstances where a woman's health is threatened to make an impossible choice: violate either state or federal law.

ADVERTISEMENT

For physicians, violation of Idaho’s law carries penalties of imprisonment from two to five years plus revocation of their medical license. Nurses and laboratory techs who violate the law also face license suspension and revocation.

“The Idaho law would make it a criminal offense for doctors to comply with EMTALA’s requirement to provide stabilizing treatment, even where a doctor determines that abortion is the medical treatment necessary to prevent a patient from suffering severe health risks or even death,” the complaint states.

The complaint goes on to say that under the Idaho law, physicians and other health care professionals who perform or assist with abortions would be subject to indictment, arrest, and prosecution. The law, the Justice Department argues, puts the burden on health care providers to prove that abortion was necessary to prevent a woman’s death, or to show that rape or incest had caused the pregnancy.

“The law provides no defense whatsoever when the health of the pregnant patient is at stake,” the suit says.

Garland said EMTALA can in certain instances require medical providers to carry out an abortion, such as in cases where a woman is undergoing a miscarriage that threatens septic infection or hemorrhage, or when suffering from severe preeclampsia.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court in deciding Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that for nearly 50 years secured a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. The case also struck down the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which affirmed the right to obtain an abortion up until about 24 weeks of pregnancy.

“This is not in any way going around the Supreme Court,” Garland said about the high court’s decision in Dobbs. "The Supreme Court said that each state can make its own decisions with respect to abortion, but so too, can the federal government. Nothing that the Supreme Court said, said that the statutes passed by Congress, such as EMTALA, are in any way invalid."

Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on Twitter @alexiskweed.

Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Flipboard, SmartNews, LinkedIn, YouTube, and reddit.

Find live stock market quotes and the latest business and finance news

For tutorials and information on investing and trading stocks, check out Cashay