The pro-abortion lobby is working overtime to force abortion on demand on all Americans.
But pro-life activists are fighting back in an effort to save lives.
That’s why pro-abortion radicals are furious that the Supreme Court will take up these two important abortion cases that could change everything.
Under a federal law, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals that accept Medicare funds are required to provide “such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition” of “any individual” who arrives at the hospital’s ER with an “emergency medical condition.”
Abortion considered an “emergency medical condition”
As written, the language in the law requires all of these hospitals to provide an abortion to women when an abortion is deemed to be the appropriate medical treatment to “stabilize their emergency medical condition.”
And over a year ago a federal court in Idaho ruled that this statute in fact requires hospitals to provide these so-called “medically necessary abortions” even if the procedure would be banned under state law.
But now the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to rule on this issue, and pro-abortionists are up in arms.
That’s because, in a pair of cases known as Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States the high court could change all this.
Both cases are from Idaho and present similar issues, but the Idaho v. United States was brought to the Supreme Court by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, while the Moyle case was brought by the state’s GOP-controlled legislature.
The trial court that first heard these cases ruled that EMTALA “preempts” Idaho’s sweeping pro-life law.
That law generally allows doctors to perform abortions only when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”
A major blow to pro-abortion forces
While the trial court decision did not technically legalize abortion in Idaho, it did hold that federal law requires Idaho hospitals to provide abortion care to patients who are at risk of “serious impairment to bodily functions,” “serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part,” or other nonfatal consequences that are defined as medical emergencies by EMTALA.
In other words, abortions must be performed for almost any reason at all, as long as the woman or her doctor believes the pregnancy causes any kind of risk.
It is a clear effort to circumvent Idaho’s pro-life law.
But now the Supreme Court could overturn this ruling and the pro-abortion mob is furious.
In a recent article in the left-wing rag Vox, the fear, anger, and frustration of the pro-abortionists came through loud and clear.
“In both the Idaho and the Moyle cases, Idaho officials ask the Supreme Court to block this lower court’s decision, despite EMTALA’s unambiguous language, and there’s at least some risk that the Court’s GOP-appointed majority will do so. This is, after all, the same majority that recently overruled Roe v. Wade and abolished the constitutional right to an abortion.”
Here’s hoping their fears are well-founded!
Pro-Life Press will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.