20240501-EMTALA

Listening to a New York Times podcast about the recent conflict between state and federal government regarding an abortion bill, I had some thoughts.

 

The federal government sued the state of Idaho for violating EMTALA, which ensures emergency care regardless of whether someone is insured. It’s interesting to see that the federal government, lacking many options to combat the state's new abortion bill, resorted to reinterpreting an older executive order in a new way.

 

The state's argument caught my attention too. They pointed out that EMTALA mentions an unborn child, arguing that the act applies not only to the woman but also to the child.

 

This situation highlights the nature of case law, which is quite different from statutory law. While such ambiguities can sometimes lead to unnecessary conflicts, they also show that political discussions in the states are becoming more substantive. Listening to the hearings in the Supreme Court, the thought experiments and cross-examinations reminded me of when I participated in debate competitions as a young student.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/health/emtala-abortion-supreme-court.html

What to Know About the Federal Law at the Heart of the Latest Supreme Court Abortion Case