T
The New York Times
Guest
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:
Background reading:
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Continue reading...
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.
Continue reading...