By Trista Bowser / Broadcast version by Mary Schuermann reporting for the Kent State-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, an Ohio law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy was allowed to take effect.

A federal judge dissolved an injunction of the state's "heartbeat" bill, on hold since 2019, after Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) filed a motion for emergency relief on June 24, the day of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. The law bans abortions after the detection of fetal cardiac activity, typically around six weeks of pregnancy and before many women know they're pregnant.

The Heartbeat Bill is now the law. pic.twitter.com/ipO9fMQ4H0

— Attorney General Dave Yost (@DaveYostOH) June 24, 2022

The "heartbeat" bill was created to outlaw abortions as soon as a doctor can detect fetal cardiac activity during a pregnancy. With the bill in effect, the only way an abortion after that date is allowed is if the mother is having complications to her health. The doctor has to show proof that the pregnancy is at risk of harming the mother.



If an illegal abortion is performed, the law makes the doctor criminally liable.



A majority of women don't realize that they are pregnant until their first missed period, by which time they are already around four weeks pregnant. People with irregular periods may not know until days to weeks later. With the heartbeat bill now in effect, most women will have two weeks or less in which they can get an abortion in Ohio.



Women seeking an abortion after that time will now have to travel outside state lines to a location where the procedure is legal.



State legislatures in Kentucky and West Virginia have outlawed abortion, though Kentucky's ban is currently blocked by the courts. Abortion is still legal in Michigan up to 19.6 weeks into pregnancy, in Indiana up to 22 weeks and in Pennsylvania up to 24 weeks.







Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson, Jessie Hill, associate dean for research and faculty development at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, explained that it will be difficult for Ohio women seeking abortions to go out of state.



"The problem with Ohio is that Ohio borders a lot of states where there's not great access either, like Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia, places like that," she said.



Legislators in the Ohio statehouse were working to limit abortion access in the year leading up to the Dobbs decision.



In December 2021, Gov. DeWine signed Senate Bill 157, which banned Ohio physicians who work for the state in some capacity from undertaking contracts with abortion clinics. The law was blocked in March, but could be allowed to take effect with Roe v. Wade overturned.



Prior to the ruling, Ohio legislators were also working on HB 598, which would almost completely ban abortion. To qualify for an exception due to complications to the mother's health, doctors would be required to complete intensive paperwork to prove to the Ohio legislators that it was absolutely necessary. The bill contains no exemptions for pregnancy as a result of rape or incest.



Hill said many women are concerned about what they would do if they became pregnant due to sexual assault. "Being forced to carry it and not wanting a pregnancy to term is just sort of a retraumatization for some people," stated Hill.



Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery), a co-sponsor of HB 598, said via email that he hopes the Ohio Legislature will call a special session "to align Ohio's laws to reflect the right that every child deserves."



"This is a bright day for the future of the unborn and we should not delay in delivering the American dream to our most vulnerable population one moment longer than necessary," he wrote.



State legislators may continue to pursue further restrictions on abortion in the coming months. On July 11, for instance, Click introduced a bill that would recognize constitutional rights beginning at conception, likely outlawing abortion in Ohio entirely.



As of this writing, there are nine clinics in Ohio still offering abortions up to six weeks, according to Pro-Choice Ohio. Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio is still offering abortion services.



"We will keep fighting for legal abortion in Ohio," states a large graphic at the top of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio's website. "We will do everything in our power to ensure every person's right to bodily autonomy is upheld. Our health centers have and will remain trusted health care partners for patients across Ohio."



This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Nevada health-care providers, patients and advocates are responding to the U.S. Supreme Court case that'll determine the future of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

The federal law mandates Medicare-funded hospitals provide patients with stabilizing care in emergency situations, which include abortions.

Dr. Christine Miyake is an emergency physician with the Valley Health System in Las Vegas, and said abortions are sometimes a necessary part of health care.

"I saw a patient who ruptured her membranes early and developed a severe uterine infection," said Miyake. "She was dying from that infection. If they were not able to provide the abortion, she surely would have died - as no amount of antibiotics would've helped her."

Miyake said abortion bans around the country have driven physicians out of their respective states - causing hospitals to shut down their labor-maternity wards, making it harder for women to access what she called "basic pregnancy care."

In Nevada the right to an abortion is protected though state law, but an initiative petition is working to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution.

Laura Campbell is the director of the National Organization for Women's Nevada Chapter, and said she received lifesaving care while she was pregnant - and contended that EMTALA is key to protecting the very care that saved her life.

But anti-abortion proponents argue that state laws that ban abortion access can coexist with the federal law. Campbell disagreed.

"With total bans on abortions in neighboring states like Arizona, Utah, and Idaho," said Campbell, "there is no question that Nevadans deserve to have their abortion rights protected in the state constitution to ensure that no judge or politician can strip away the right to make their own health-care choices."

Eighty-six percent of the public supports protecting access to abortion for patients experiencing pregnancy-related emergencies, according to a recent KFF poll.




get more stories like this via email

The Missouri Legislature has approved a law to stop its Medicaid program, known as MO HealthNet, from paying Planned Parenthood for medical services for Medicaid patients.

The decision follows a court ruling which found not reimbursing Planned Parenthood through Medicaid goes against Missouri's constitution.

Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said they have joined forces with Planned Parenthood St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri and stand behind providing health care to those who need it. She argued the Legislature is causing confusion despite a clear decision from the highest court.

"Despite the court's repeatedly ruling that 'defunding' Planned Parenthood health centers is unconstitutional, lawmakers continue to deny critical care like birth control, cancer screenings, wellness exams and STI testing and treatment from the patients who need it," Wales stressed.

According to the Missouri Family Health Council, Planned Parenthood health centers serve nearly half of patients who rely on family planning safety net providers in the state. Planned Parenthood Great Plains and St. Louis Region Southwest Missouri will continue serving patients and is looking for alternative solutions for funding.

The new law also blocks Planned Parenthood from being a recognized provider in the state's Medicaid program. Wales pointed out it could hurt health care for people who rely on the safety net.

"There are not enough other providers in the health care safety-net system to absorb Planned Parenthood's patients," Wales pointed out. "At Planned Parenthood, we'll continue to do everything we can to serve our patients, no matter what."

Planned Parenthood Great Plains provides health care to more than 30,000 people in 13 health centers across Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma. The St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri chapter has been serving for more than 90 years.

get more stories like this via email

By Mary Anne Franks for Ms. Magazine.
Broadcast version by Alex Gonzalez for Northern Rockies News Service reporting for the Ms. Magazine-Public News Service Collaboration

People end up in emergency rooms for a variety of reasons. They’re having trouble breathing. They’ve suddenly developed chest pains. They’re bleeding uncontrollably. They’ve fallen off a roof, they’ve crashed their car, they’ve overdosed, they’re suicidal, they got stabbed in a fight, they got shot by police.

Some people who need emergency services are poor, or have no insurance, or are in the country illegally, or have committed a crime. Under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), they are all entitled to receive emergency care. This law is based on a simple principle: Hospitals shouldn’t be allowed to let people die based on who they are, how much they can pay, or what they have done.

On April 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Moyle v. U.S., a case that will determine whether individual states are allowed to exclude a single group from this basic protection: pregnant women. The state of Idaho claims that it has the right to forbid pregnant women and girls—and only pregnant women and girls—from receiving emergency care that could save their lives.

How, and why, would a state want to do this?

First, the how: In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs that forced childbirth does not violate the Constitution. This allowed Idaho’s 2020 “Defense of Life Act,” a draconian anti-abortion law, to go into effect. According to the law, anyone who performs an abortion faces imprisonment of up to five years in prison. Healthcare professionals who perform abortions will also have their professional licenses suspended or revoked permanently.

This puts the state law directly in conflict with federal emergency care law. EMTALA requires Medicare-funded hospitals (which most hospitals are) to provide medically necessary stabilizing treatment to any patient with an “emergency medical condition.” An emergency medical condition is one that, in the absence of immediate medical attention, is likely to cause “serious impairment to bodily functions,” “serious dysfunction of any bodily organ,” or otherwise puts the health of the patient “in serious jeopardy.”

Pregnancy complications are a common reason for emergency care visits, and the medically necessary stabilizing treatment necessary to prevent serious injury or death to women and girls experiencing those complications sometimes includes the termination of the pregnancy.

Given that an abortion is sometimes the only medical treatment that will prevent death or serious bodily injury to women, a more accurate title for Idaho’s abortion law would be the “Let Women Die Act.” But as seen in the majority decision in Dobbs and the arguments propounded recently by the Alliance Defending Freedom in the mifepristone access case, forced birth proponents are rarely candid about their necropolitical agenda. Defenders of Idaho’s law instead feign outrage at the suggestion that the law will kill women, pointing to the law’s exception for abortions performed by a physician who “determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Idaho insists that the law’s exception for abortions necessary to save the life of the mother means that there is no conflict between it and federal law. But as the Department of Justice pointed out when it sued to stop the Idaho law from being enforced with regard to EMTALA’s requirements, federal law requires emergency medical care necessary to prevent serious injury, not just death. The federal law does not authorize the withholding of essential medical treatment to patients who are only close to, but have not yet arrived, at death’s door.

What is more, as countless medical professionals have attested, the line between serious bodily injury or death is rarely precise. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to predict the exact moment that a serious medical condition becomes a life-threatening one.

As the National Women’s Law Center detailed in its amicus brief in the case, “No clinical bright line defines when a patient’s condition crosses the lines of this continuum. At what point does the condition of a pregnant woman with a uterine hemorrhage deteriorate from health-threatening to the point that an abortion is ‘necessary’ to prevent death? When is it certain she will die but for medical intervention? How many blood units does she have to lose? One? Two? Five? How fast does she have to be bleeding?”

The recognition that serious bodily injury and death are so closely related as to be nearly indistinguishable has long been reflected in U.S. law. At common law, a person could be convicted of murder not only if he intended to kill but also if he intended to inflict “grievous bodily injury.” The law of self-defense generally allows a person to use deadly force when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, not only to herself but to others.

Significantly, Idaho’s self-defense law specifies that a person is not required to wait for the danger to become fully apparent before acting: “The defense of self or of another does not require a person to wait until he or she ascertains whether the danger is apparent or real. A person confronted with such danger has a clear right to act upon appearances such as would influence the action of a reasonable person.”

Unless, of course, the person in danger is a pregnant woman.


Mary Anne Franks wrote this article for Ms. Magazine.

get more stories like this via email