The Daily

The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court

May 1, 2024

Pam Belluck, a health and science reporter for The New York Times, and Abbie VanSickle, a Supreme Court reporter, delve into the contentious legal battles surrounding abortion rights. They discuss the Biden administration's challenge to Idaho's strict abortion law under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). The conversation unveils the potential ramifications for women's health and the ongoing tug-of-war between state and federal authority as various states impose new abortion bans. Their insights shed light on the Supreme Court's significant role in shaping the future of abortion law.

33:27

Creator website

Episode guests

Abbie VanSickle

Pam Belluck

AI Summary

Highlights

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

The Biden administration creatively uses the M.Tala law to challenge state abortion bans, expanding the abortion debate.

The Idaho vs. Biden case at the Supreme Court reveals the clash between state autonomy in abortion laws and federal intervention.

Deep dives

Biden Administration Using M.Tala for Abortion Rights

The Biden administration is challenging Idaho's abortion ban by leveraging the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (M.Tala) in an unexpected manner. While the Dobbs case removed the constitutional right to abortion, leaving states the authority to enforce abortion laws, the federal government is exploring ways to intervene. By utilizing M.Tala, a law initially focused on emergency room medical care, the Biden administration aims to combat stringent state abortion bans, notably targeting Idaho's restrictive legislation.

Abortion Not Considered in Historical Law Context

00:22

Timely Abortion Decision Impact on Fertility

00:24

Difficulty in Predicting Court Decisions

00:21

Intro

3min

EMTALA: Protecting Emergency Care Rights

10min

Legal Struggles in the Abortion Debate

5min

Supreme Court Showdown: Idaho's Abortion Law

11min

Supreme Court Showdown and Campus Unrest

7min

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, a health and science reporter for The New York Times.
Abbie VanSickle, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times.

Background reading:

Here’s a guide to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the federal law at the heart of the case.
And here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court arguments on Idaho’s abortion ban.

For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts

Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.

The Daily

The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court

Episode guests

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

Deep dives

Biden Administration Using M.Tala for Abortion Rights

Role of Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (M.Tala)

Supreme Court's Involvement and Implications

Oral Arguments and Judicial Perspectives

Abortion Not Considered in Historical Law Context

Timely Abortion Decision Impact on Fertility

Difficulty in Predicting Court Decisions

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts