From the ACLU, this is at Liberty.

I'm Kendall Seasmeyer, your host.

Today, on April 24th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will determine the future of emergency abortion care.

At issue in the case of Idaho v. United States is whether or not doctors in states where abortion

is banned have to continue to deny abortion care, even in emergency settings according to their state

laws. Despite a national law named EMTALA or the Emergency Medical Treatment

and Labor Act, requiring all hospitals to provide life-saving and medically stabilizing health care

to anyone who shows up at their emergency room. Currently in Idaho, the abortion ban on the books

only allows medical providers to perform abortions in the event that the pregnant person will imminently die without one, but bans it in the event that not having an abortion will cause permanent disability or undue harm to the pregnant person's life.

As you can imagine, these two laws have put doctors

in a terrible position in Idaho.

The circumstances are even more dire

for pregnant patients in Idaho,

and the most dire for disabled pregnant patients.

Disabled pregnant people are far more likely

to necessitate this kind of care than their non-disabled

peers, as most disabled pregnant folks already have high-risk pregnancies.

Disabled people know all too well the risks of not accessing care when it's needed,

and also know there's a lot of hardship, pain, and suffering that can escape the claw of quote-unquote imminent death.

So today we're talking about the intersection of disability and abortion rights,

specifically as it pertains to this case, but also more broadly.

Joining me to discuss this is Dr. Robin Powell, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, specializing in disability and family law.

...