Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

U.S. Lawsuit Claims Federal Law Can Require Emergency Abortions

Bibliographic Data

ID20335899
AuthorsStephen R Latham (0000-0002-3036-1400, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume52
Issue5
Pages4-5
Publication date2022-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Hastings Center Report (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0093-0334 • E-ISSN: 1552-146X
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/hast.1414
PMID36226878
OpenAlexW4304945296
LanguageEN
References cited1

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's overruling of Roe vs. Wade, states are passing very strict antiabortion laws that the Biden administration is arguing violate the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) because those state laws do not permit emergency life‐saving abortions that federal law says must be available to patients. The Biden administration has filed suit against Idaho to have portions of its state law invalidated, and Texas has filed suit against the Biden administration, arguing that its interpretation of EMTALA as requiring that abortions be available to patients in some emergency circumstances amounts to an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government. These suits, and others related to them, may redefine health‐related federalism in the United States

Administration (probate law) · Federal law · Federalism · Government (linguistics) · Lawsuit · Legislation · Political science · Politics · State (computer science) · State law · Statute · Supreme court · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Law · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Reproductive Health and Contraception

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOI
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae