On April 24, the Supreme Court docket will hear the case of Idaho v. United States – the second case this time period involving entry to abortion. In a brand new letter, KFF examines what's at stake, specializing in whether or not the Emergency Medical Remedy and Energetic Labor Act (EMTALA) — a federal legislation that requires almost all hospitals to make sure emergency room sufferers are are secure earlier than being discharged from hospital care – overrides state abortion legal guidelines.

The brand new letter discusses the background to the case and EMTALA, together with steering from the Biden administration, authorized challenges, the problems the Supreme Court docket will take into account and the potential impression of a ruling.

Idaho has an abortion ban that solely contains an exception to save lots of the lifetime of the pregnant individual, and states that EMTALA doesn’t preempt this ban. In states with abortion bans that would not have a well being exception, a hospital can’t, below state legislation, present an abortion as a stabilizing remedy for a pregnant affected person with circumstances that threat severe and everlasting hurt, comparable to sepsis, kidney failure. failure and fertility loss. Idaho claims there is no such thing as a battle between state and federal legislation as a result of EMTALA requires physicians to do all the things attainable to protect the lifetime of each the pregnant lady and their fetus.

The Biden administration considers abortion care to guard a pregnant individual's well being — not simply to save lots of a life — as an integral a part of the type of stabilizing remedy EMTALA requires hospitals to supply. A ruling in favor of the federal authorities would imply pregnant sufferers may obtain abortion care if wanted to stabilize their well being in hospital emergency rooms throughout the nation, even in states with abortion bans which have solely a lifetime exception.