�鶹Ů��

The Supreme Court’s decision that Idaho’s near-total ban on abortions does not preempt federal rules requiring certain treatment in emergency rooms is the second major ruling to bolster the Biden administration on abortion rights since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. The ruling, at least for now, also preserves a key tool the Biden administration has increasingly relied upon since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022 — a 1986 law known by the acronym EMTALA that requires hospitals to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to all patients as a condition of receiving Medicare funding. (Raman, 6/27)

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson slammed her Supreme Court colleagues for punting a decision about Idaho’s strict abortion ban Thursday, saying in a charged dissent that the court has failed pregnant women in the state. Forcefully reading her dissent from the bench, Jackson said the ruling was “not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho,” even though doctors will be allowed to provide emergency abortions as the case is litigated in lower courts. (Weixel, 6/27)

The Supreme Court this month handed President Biden a pair of wins on abortion rights — but they could be short-lived. The court made two major decisions about abortion that preserved or expanded access to reproductive health care for now, but teed up an even sharper debate about reproductive rights that will play out in November’s elections. (Owermohle, 6/27)

The Iowa Supreme Court will release a highly anticipated ruling Friday that could have massive implications for the ability of women to obtain abortions in Iowa. At issue is a 2023 law banning most abortions after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, about six weeks into a pregnancy. A lower court blocked the law from going into effect, and Gov. Kim Reynolds has appealed that ruling. (Morris, 6/27)

At first glance, the new campaign Abortion Access Now doesn’t look that new—its website features the ubiquitous, navy-blue “Keep Abortion Legal” protest sign from the National Organization for Women (who are not part of the campaign). Its remit doesn’t seem all that new, either; the “national, 10-year campaign,” Politico reported this week, “will both prepare policies for the next time Democrats control the House, Senate and White House, and build support for those policies among lawmakers and the public.” But the policies that have been shared so far are legislative proposals that have already been made. The headline is the money: The groups involved in the campaign—including well-known and well-resourced groups such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU—recently announced they are “pledging a $100 million investment.” (Grant, 6/27)

�鶹Ů�� Health News: Republicans Are Downplaying Abortion, But It Keeps Coming Up

For generations, the GOP campaigned on eliminating the right to an abortion in the United States. Now, torn between a base that wants more restrictions on reproductive health care and a moderate majority that does not, it seems many Republicans would rather take an off-ramp than a victory lap. And yet, they just can’t escape talking about it. The policy high point for abortion opponents — the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to strike down Roe v. Wade — is proving a low point for public support for their cause. (Rovner, 6/28)

House Democrats are vowing to make abortion protections among their first acts of business next year if voters return them to power in November’s elections. The lawmakers are warning that keeping the GOP in control of the House — especially if Republicans take the Senate and White House — would lead to tougher restrictions on not only abortions, but also contraception, in vitro fertilization (IVF) and stem cell research. (Lillis, 6/27)

For two years, doctors in more than a dozen states where abortion is restricted have faced an agonizing calculus. When has a pregnant woman’s medical condition deteriorated enough to qualify for an abortion under state law? And at what point might doctors compromise their medical duty to help a patient by not performing an abortion sooner? (Calfas and McKay, 6/27)