Republican state attorneys general argue against saving a pregnant person's life

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

48% : The language of the EMTALA requires stabilizing the mother as well as the fetus, but it was passed in 1986 when Roe was still law and abortion was legal in all 50 states.
44% : However, as some legal experts argue, if abortion is the only way to stabilize a patient, requiring such a procedure clearly falls under the EMTALA.
43% : Common prescriptions that can cause abortion (abortifacients) aren't being filled at pharmacies.
43% : (Again, this is why we need to embrace abortion as self-defense).
41% : It's ahistorical and nonsensical to suggest that the law wouldn't protect abortion to save the life of the mother since abortions for any reason were legal at the time the law was written.
39% : This Democrat-elect views abortion as a winning issue in competitive swing districts
38% : Texas also argued that the EMTALA did not guarantee access to a specific treatment (and obviously didn't mention abortion), so the federal government cannot require abortions using that law.
37% :READ MORE: How GOP candidates are 'feeling the pressure' navigating abortion in the post-Roe era: conservativeIn July, after Dobbs, the HHS clarified that the federal guidance under the EMTALA required performing an abortion if it's necessary to save the pregnant person's life or to prevent serious health risks.
34% : So State attorneys general in Texas and Idaho want to let pregnant people die even though denying abortion won't save the fetus.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.