Staff Reports
Following the recent decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, state legislatures around the United States are enacting legislation that, in the majority of instances, criminalizes the practice of abortion. It should come as no surprise that the Democratic Party and the majority of the liberally headed federal government are not very enthusiastic about this development. Nevertheless, there is very little that the majority of states can do about it.
However, this does not imply that they are going to take a passive stance and let what they refer to as "women's reproductive rights" to be violated.
They began their legal action by filing a complaint against the state of Idaho.
Idaho is one of approximately 25 states that have, to this point, recently enacted legislation that restricts access to abortion services. On the other hand, theirs may be somewhat more stringent than others; at least, that's how the federal government and the Department of Justice are interpreting it.
According to Attorney General Merrick Garland of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the new law of the state, which is going to go into effect on August 25, comes into conflict with a federal law that requires physicians and other healthcare experts to just provide emergency treatment to a patient in an effort to save the patient's life.
In the event that the required emergency medical treatment is an abortion, Idaho's bill would make it a criminal violation for doctors to administer emergency medical treatment that is required by federal law, in the instance that the needed emergency medical treatment is an abortion.
Anyone who enters a medical facility in need of emergency treatment must comply with the requirements of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which mandates that they receive the care they seek. According to Garland, the law in Idaho would prohibit emergency physicians from doing this procedure if a pregnant woman presents herself at the facility and explains that she needs an abortion to save her life.
Or, if the doctor were to perform the abortion and in doing so save the life of the mother, the law in Idaho would enable for the doctor to be arrested, accused, and convicted just by establishing that an abortion has been performed, regardless of the circumstances. In light of this, the Department of Justice stated that the burden of proof rests squarely on the physician to establish a 'affirmative defense' at trial.
There are one of two components that make up the affirmative defense. Either it can be demonstrated that the pregnant woman really was in danger of losing her life as a result of the pregnancy or the difficulties that arose as a result of the pregnancy, or it cannot. Either there must be proof that the pregnant lady was a victim of rape or incest, which means that such a heinous crime was filed to enforcement agencies and that the abortion practitioner had this report on hand, or there must be proof that the pregnant woman was raped or incestuously touched.
As I mentioned earlier, the statute in Idaho is rather stricter than those in other states, which is why the Department of Justice selected the Gem State as their first target.
However, according to Republican Idaho Governor Brad Little, the issue is no longer a concern for the federal government in any meaningful way.
The problem of abortion was sent back to the states to regulate, and that's the end of the story, said the highest court in our nation. The intervention of the United States Department of Justice with Idaho's pro-life law is yet another example of Vice President Joe Biden's overreaching as he continues to overlook issues that actually should require his attention, such as soaring inflation and an open border with Mexico.
I'm sorry to say it, but he may not be completely off base here. If the matter is now one that is of concern to the states, then the federal government has no business trying to influence how, when, or why the states choose the laws that they do regarding the matter. Naturally, this does not imply that any state may simply make up whatever law they want to about any topic that they are tasked with regulating without taking into consideration the welfare of the American people.
But it is very evident that the majority of people in Idaho believe that this law does not do that. It continues to allow for exceptions to the no-abortion rule, the most important of which is that a woman's pregnancy can be ended if there is a risk to her life as a result of the pregnancy. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Garland claims the EMTALA federal rule does as well?
Therefore, there isn't much of a disagreement going on here.
As a result of the fear of being punished, there is a growing problem with medical professionals delaying or outright providing such therapy to pregnant patients. The chairwoman of the Idaho Democratic Party, Lauren Necochea, deems this practice to be "immoral."
And I tend to agree with that assessment. Waiting for a woman's physical condition to deteriorate to the point where she is on the verge of passing away is a bitter pill to chew but is in no way sinful, even if I believe abortion should be prevented if at all possible. In addition, I believe that breaks the Hippocratic oath that each of them swore to uphold.
But does that imply that medical professionals should be allowed more leeway when it comes to carrying out abortions? Share with us your thoughts and opinions.
The preceding is a summary of an article that originally appeared on American Retirement Insider.
