21
votes
The post Dobbs dilemma for US emergency healthcare - Navigating the conflict between EMTALA and State abortion restrictions
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- AHLA - Between EMTALA and State Abortion Restrictions: The Post-Dobbs Dilemma
- Word count
- 3437 words
Thanks to @earlsweatshirt an article has been provided reflecting the current state of play for emergency abortion care in US states with laws restricting abortion care. EMTALA is the federal emergency care law that hospitals must comply with or risk losing all Medicare funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
This is an article analyzing how various US state and federal laws interact with respect to abortion. I didn't see any examples of how people were affected or of legal cases, but it seems like it would likely be useful, for example, to lawyers working for hospitals?
From a legal realist standpoint, I suppose what matters is what people working for hospitals think they need to do and what judges decide if it ends up in court?
Apparently the EMTALA could be used to apply pressure to a hospital, but when would the federal government actually cut off funds to a hospital? Is that something that happens? Or is it always resolved before it gets that far?
Two cases are cited, Texas v Becerra https://clearinghouse.net/case/43404/
and United States v Idaho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_v._United_States.
This is a very recent area of conflict between state laws and federal laws since the dobbs decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization. More cases should be expected to develop.
Risk management for doctors and hospitals are scurrying to keep up. Women's rights advocates are teeing up cases that they think could be favorable to their side. Conservative prosecutors are going to be gunning for high profile cases to prosecute. It's a bona fide mess with high stakes for women's health and doctors careers.