The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court

As the presidential race moves into high gear, abortion is at the center of it. Republican-controlled states continue to impose new bans, including just this week in Florida.
But in Washington, the Biden administration is challenging one of those bans in a case that is now before the Supreme Court, arguing that Idaho’s strict rules violate a federal law on emergency medical treatment.
Pam Belluck, a health and science reporter at The Times, and Abbie VanSickle, who covers the Supreme Court, explain how the federal law, known as EMTALA, relates to abortion, and how the case could reverberate beyond Idaho.
Guests:
• Pam Belluck (www.nytimes.com/by/pam-belluck) , a health and science reporter for The New York Times.
• Abbie VanSickle (www.nytimes.com/by/abbie-vans...) , who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times.
Background reading:
• Here’s a guide to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/he...) , the federal law at the heart of the case.
• And here are five takeaways (www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/us...) from the Supreme Court arguments on Idaho’s abortion ban.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily (nytimes.com/thedaily?smid=pc-t...) . Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

[@pamlewis1183]

The high court will continue to have to deal with this issue until Congress codifys Roe.

[@ericarn]

No, there was no need to clarify abortions could be used for emergencies because Roe was in place. This was best medical practice in many cases handling preterm miscarriages, uncontrollable preeclampsia and PPROM.

[@franjkav]

The lady basically explained the history of EMTALA with regard to abortion as a whole both sides have an agenda narrative which is simplistic, obvious, and dumb. She sure did use plausible deniability enough to distort what seems to be her own agenda and reasons for framing her non-narrative the way she did.

[@ericarn]

I think she knows Roe was in place before now, therefore ER doctors were free to give abortions as best medical practice when pregnancies were threatening women’s lives or serious risk to their health. At least women had a choice of whether to risk kidney failure, sepsis, future fertility when pregnancies were going wrong before this. These are not women seeking ‘elective’ abortions. Other things about this interview were suspect. I no longer trust NYT after some recent articles and this.

[@pamlewis1183]

Amy Coney Barrett has given birth; that's how she surprised everyone.

[@leebloomquist3896]

If the logic of Genesis is right about the self beginning at first breath, then the first experience of the self must be "hunger for air." Which is a term from the science of physiology. * If this logic from Genesis is wrong and the self begins BEFORE the first breath, then some experience other than hunger for air must occur before the first experience of hunger for air. * Maybe the first beat of the heart. However, there is self control over the breath but not over the heartbeat. I can take a few deep breaths and then hold my breath for a certain amount of time. But I can't take a few deep heartbeats and then hold my heartbeat for a certain amount of time. Self control exists for the breath but not for the heartbeat. * The physiology is most likely that "astrocytes" (a kind of "glial cell" in the brain) flood the system during parturition. Astrocytes are required for consciousness, because the "astrocyte syncytium" is a basic part of the brain. These astrocytes enable memory. And memory involves the self. But the instrumentation for all of this is difficult, if not impossible. * So at the initial experience of hunger for air, the self has simply the shortest forms of memory. No long term forms of memory yet exist for it. (For more on memory and the self, please see the youtube video "A memory of kindness.") * The logic from Genesis appears in the words: "... breath of life ..." Logically there must be a first breath. And there must be a last breath. (For more quotations from the Bible, please Google the article: "Pro-choice pastors like Raphael Warnock have the Bible, history on their side")

[@franjkav]

Or we could stop imposing religion on others

[@Pafemanti]

@@franjkav The road to get their may lie in _using_ that religion to support the goal, as deplorable as that may seem. Practicality is messier than theory.

[@arnoldwilson5377]

Hey NYT, do you have enough abortion coverage yet?

[@ericarn]

When half of the population has lost the right to control our bodies, it’s kinda a big deal. 🙄 “If men got pregnant, you could get an abortion at the ATM. Let’s state the obvious.” - Veep

[@petyrbaelish1216]

If y'all stop trying to ban it then everyone would quit talking about it.

[@nikiroberts6052]

@arnoldwilson5377 How about discussing the idea of every man undergoing a vasectomy as soon as he hits puberty, which could then be reversed once he demonstrates his readiness for responsible fatherhood? This would potentially eliminate all unwanted pregnancies. However, the US wouldn't dare consider regulating a man's body, would we?

[@lomotil3370]

@@ericarn If men could get pregnant, women would lose all of their privilege. Let's state the obvious.

[@ericarn]

“Have abortions to get rid of babies?” Do better.

[@robinhood20253]

You should do better.

[@ericarn]

@@robinhood20253You have no actual critique or notion of what I’m talking about do you, troll?

[@robinhood20253]

@@ericarn well I am aware that you don't seem to know the difference between a baby and a fetus.

[@ericarn]

@@robinhood20253​​⁠​​⁠Lol… yes, I actually do. I was quoting what the lady said in the interview. SHE said ‘baby’ in this interview when taking about women going into ERs and being turned away. I will have to listen again at the exact time, but she mentioned something about these were not women who were there for elective abortions “to get rid of babies”… There are remarkable and significant differences between ‘a baby’ and a fetus/embryo in elective abortions. I support every woman’s right to make the best decisions for herself regarding how a pregnancy will effect her life and health. I would never refer to anyone trying to “get rid of a baby” in an abortion.

[@ericarn]

At 33:16 “not women who were trying to come in for abortions to get rid of babies”… That’s what the interviewer said. I thought this was an unfair and misleading way to describe ‘elective’ abortions. NYT has been disappointing to me lately in some of their reporting, but usually not about abortion and reproductive rights. This whole piece was surprising, especially how they didn’t mention that Roe was in place when EMTALA was passed that protected doctors who needed to give emergency abortions as best medical practice for preterm pregnancy complications.