Trump Will Let Idaho Refuse Life-Saving Abortions

3.4.25

Click to skip ahead: Banning Emergency Abortion has an update on the Idaho EMTALA case. All Eyes on Wisconsin looks at the state supreme court race and the Republican candidate who said women justices are too “emotional” to rule on abortion. In the States, news from Kansas, Delaware, and West Virginia. In the Nation, some quick hits. Stats & Studies highlights new research showing a brain drain out of states with abortion bans. Criminalizing Care has a breakdown of criminal penalties for abortion providers across the states. And Keep An Eye On warns about efforts to force women with life-threatening pregnancies into c-sections rather than abortions.

---

Banning Emergency Abortion

We knew this was coming, but that doesn’t make it any less devastating: The Trump administration is set to drop the federal case against Idaho over its abortion ban, paving the way for hospitals there to deny women life-saving abortion care.

According to the Associated Press, court papers filed by Idaho’s St. Luke’s Health System suggest the case could be dropped as soon as tomorrow.

For those who need a refresher: The Biden administration sued Idaho because its ban violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)—the federal law requiring hospital emergency rooms to provide life-saving and stabilizing care, including abortions.

Republican leaders in the state insisted their ban was just fine, even as Idaho hospitals were forced to airlift patients out of state to save their lives. Attorney General Raúl Labrador went as far as accusing doctors and hospital administrators of lying about having to evacuate patients, claiming that they were trying to make a “political statement.”

The suit made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where American women were treated to the distinct horror of watching lawyers debate just how many organs would be acceptable for them to lose before the state should be required to give them care.

In the end, the justices dismissed the case as “improvidently granted”—a technical way of saying they shouldn’t have taken it in the first place. The good news? That meant a lower court ruling allowing emergency abortions in Idaho remained in place. The bad news was that without a final ruling on the merits, the Court left pregnant patients’ humanity up for debate.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it best:

“This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price.”

What’s important to know is that this isn’t just about Idaho. By dropping this case, the Trump administration is sending a clear message that anti-abortion states don’t have to adhere to EMTALA by giving pregnant patients life-saving care.

Learn more about Republicans’ attacks on emergency abortions:

Of Course They Want Us Dead

All Eyes on Wisconsin

Let’s talk about Brad Schimel, the Republican running for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court who thinks the women justices are too “emotional” to rule on abortion. Wish I was kidding!

First, some context: If you’re not following the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, you really should be. It’s on track to be the most expensive state court election in U.S. history for a reason: The outcome won’t just decide the future of abortion rights in Wisconsin—it could shape national politics. As a key swing state, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has the power to influence election laws and, by extension, the presidency.

You may remember that the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to a liberal majority in 2023 after Janet Protasiewicz won a race dominated by abortion rights. Now, with a liberal justice retiring, there’s another election this April. Conservatives are running former Attorney General Brad Schimel in an attempt to take back control.

We already knew Schimel was an anti-abortion asshole: In January, I flagged that he was caught on tape admitting he’d already made up his mind about the abortion case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He declared there’s “not a constitutional right to abortion in our State Constitution” and said it would be a “sham” if the justices ruled in favor of abortion rights.

Now he’s under fire for saying that the liberal justices—who just happen to all be women—aren’t fit to rule on abortion because “they are being driven by their emotions.”

Here’s exactly what Schimel said on a local conservative radio show, reacting to the justices’ questions during oral arguments in the abortion case:

“The other thing that I noted, there were times that when that camera went on several of the liberal justices, they were on the brink of losing it. You could see it in their eyes, and you could hear it in the tone of their voice. They are being driven by their emotions. A Supreme Court justice had better be able to set their personal opinions and their emotions aside and rule on the law objectively. This is—we don’t have that objectivity on this court.” (Emphasis mine.)

I was already pissed off when I heard him call the female justices “emotional.” But the part about their “tone of voice” sent me over the edge. We all know exactly what he’s doing here.

Incredibly, Schimel doubled down when asked about his comments, saying that one of the justices “had lost control of her emotions” and that she was “literally yelling at an attorney.”

But that’s not what happened. As Kylie Cheung at Jezebel pointed out, footage of the arguments shows all the justices—men included—getting impassioned about the case. No one yelled or screamed. But to misogynists, smart women who push back will always be read as screaming hysterics.

The four female justices weren’t having it. In a statement last week, they slammed Schimel for his “antiquated and distorted view of women.”

“By suggesting that women get too emotional and are unfit to serve as judges and justices, he turns back decades of progress for women. These petty and personal attacks have no place in our campaigns and courtrooms, and are just one more reason that we have endorsed Susan Crawford for Justice.”

For background on the case that will determine the future of abortion rights in Wisconsin, click here.

In the States

Speaking of how state supreme courts shape abortion rights, let’s talk about what’s going on in Kansas. Clay Wirestone at the Kansas Reflector posits that Republicans’ attempts to change how justices are placed on the court just may be part of a broader plan to ban abortion in the state.

Remember, Kansas voters are pro-choice: In 2022, they overwhelmingly defeated an anti-choice ballot measure that would have codified the idea that the state constitution has no right to abortion. That ballot measure was in part a response to a 2019 decision from the Kansas Supreme Court, which found that abortion is protected in the state constitution.

That’s why Republicans are seeking out different ways to elect justices that could benefit conservative candidates—they know that the court is standing between them and banning all abortions in the state.

I told you yesterday about Democrats’ push for a pro-choice ballot measure in Delaware, and why its ‘viability’ restriction is such a bad idea. Delaware Public Media has more on that today.

In related news, States Newsroom reports that West Virginia Democrats are also pushing for an abortion rights amendment with ‘viability’ restrictions. It is near-impossible, though, that the effort will go anywhere.

Only lawmakers can put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in West Virginia, and Republicans are in control of the state legislature. So this measure is more of a symbolic move—a way to bring attention to the fact that Republicans in the state are seeking even more restrictions on abortion. (GOP lawmakers want to do away with the state’s narrow rape and incest exceptions.)

But I think it’s worth reiterating again and again—even in symbolic efforts—that there should be zero government interference in pregnancy. After all, we know that’s what Americans overwhelmingly want: 81% say abortion shouldn’t be legislated at all. And as I noted yesterday, we’re watching in real-time as Republicans use ‘viability’ language as a loophole for even more harmful restrictions.

In the Nation

• The National Women’s Law Center has an explainer on Trump’s pick for the head of the CDC, “anti-abortion supervillain” David Weldon;

• Sen. Patty Murray held a virtual panel today with women harmed by Republican abortion bans;

• Law professor Mary Ziegler writes at MSNBC about the Republican-led lawsuit to undo a federal rule allowing workers time off for pregnancy-related care, including abortions.

• And Reproductive Freedom For All breaks down what to watch for in Trump’s address to Congress tonight—expect lies about ‘post-birth’ abortion, ‘commonsense’ legislation, and ‘leaving abortion to the states.’"

Stats & Studies

New research confirms that abortion bans are fueling a brain drain in conservative states, especially among young people.

A study from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) found that 1 in 10 adults has either moved or knows someone who has because of abortion restrictions. That number jumps to 1 in 5 among Americans who want children. That’s right—20% of people who want kids have either moved because of abortion bans or know someone who has.

No surprise, these bans are deeply unpopular—even in conservative states and especially among young people. Most Americans also want companies to take a stand on reproductive rights, and nearly 60% prioritize employers that offer reproductive health care benefits.

"Workers are not willing to trade their health and autonomy for a paycheck,” says IWPR president Jamila K. Taylor. “Businesses can no longer afford to ignore the impact of abortion restrictions on their workforce.”

This tracks with a recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which found that states with total abortion bans lost 128,700 residents in the year after Roe fell. Once again, it was young people leading the exodus.

It’s almost as if people want to live and start families in states that care about their health and rights!

Criminalizing Care

KFF just released updated information on penalties doctors face in anti-abortion states, breaking down the criminal charges, punishments, and legal risks. A helpful—but terrifying—infographic below:

Beyond the threat of prison time, KFF points out that physicians also face civil suits, hefty fines, and even losing their medical licenses. And while no doctor has been jailed for providing abortion care yet, Louisiana has already indicted Dr. Maggie Carpenter—a New York provider—for mailing abortion medication to a patient in the state.

Keep An Eye On

For over a year, I’ve been warning that Republicans want to force patients with life-threatening pregnancies into c-sections rather than abortion—even when a fetus is nonviable, and even though abortions are easier, safer, and less painful. We’re talking about major abdominal surgery over a ten-minute abortion. It’s a nightmare.

But conservatives don’t care about putting patients at risk, they just want the ability to pretend that abortion is never necessary to save someone’s health or life. By forcing doctors to perform c-sections or induce labor in life-threatening pregnancies, they think they can make that talking point true.

These groups are so desperate to divorce abortion from healthcare that they invented an entirely new (and fake) term: maternal fetal separation.

This isn’t just a fringe idea—it’s an intentional strategy pushed by the country’s most powerful anti-abortion groups. The Charlotte Lozier Institute, for example, explicitly recommends treating life-threatening pregnancies “by labor induction or c-section,” which they claim is “medically standard.” (It is most certainly not.)

The group even argues that c-sections are “a more appropriate method of separation” because it “shows greater respect for the human dignity of the fetus.” Dignity for women isn’t mentioned.

This rhetoric is already making its way into legislation. From a 2023 column I published in The New York Times:

“If a woman in Idaho has a life-threatening pregnancy, state law dictates that the doctor must end the pregnancy in a way that provides ‘the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive,’ which the State Supreme Court has interpreted to include performing a cesarean or vaginal delivery. Similarly, a bill proposed in Wisconsin this summer stated that a procedure performed during a medical emergency isn’t an abortion if a doctor ‘makes reasonable medical efforts’ to preserve ‘both the life of the woman and the life of her unborn child’; legislators mentioned using a C-section and early labor, specifically.”

It’s only gotten worse since. This kind of language is spreading—as is the idea that politicians should dictate what kind of care doctors give. (Remember my coverage of ‘Med Ed’ bills?)

In Oklahoma right now, for example, House Bill 1008 would mandate that life-saving abortions “prioritize preserving both the life of the pregnant woman and the life of the baby.”

Bill sponsor Rep. Jim Olsen says the language is meant to "recognize the humanity of the baby." Once again, the humanity of pregnant people went unmentioned.

Read more about conservatives’ c-section strategy in my book or in AED’s past coverage.