Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
A new interactive map shows how parts of Washington state could be submerged underwater as sea levels rise due to climate change.
Washington’s extensive coastal regions, which stretch around 157 miles along the Pacific Ocean, would be particularly at risk, according to the map.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that by the year 2100, global sea levels could rise by up to 3.6 feet if global greenhouse gas emissions are not mitigated. However, it says that a rise of around 6.6 feet “cannot be ruled out.”
The map by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) allows users to see how different parts of the United States would be affected if sea levels rose by different amounts.
If sea levels were to rise by 3 feet, parts of Skagit County around the town of La Conner would be completely submerged in water.
The affected areas include those along the coast of the Swinomish Channel, which connects to Skagit Bay, Port Susan, and Livingston Bay. In the north, areas bordering Padilla Bay and Samish Bay would also be badly affected by the rising sea levels.
If sea levels were to rise by 6 feet, in line with the IPCC’s more severe projections, water would encroach further inland in these areas, and other coastal regions would also be affected.
Seattle would mostly be spared, except for the Terminal 18 container facility and some small areas along the coast, which would be submerged if sea levels rose by six feet.
NOAA
Sea level rise is primarily caused by the melting of ice caps into the ocean due to warming temperatures. The level at which sea levels will rise will be impacted by whether global action is taken to slow climate change.
“Sea level rise will create a profound shift in coastal flooding over the next 30 years by causing tide and storm surge heights to increase and reach further inland. By 2050, ‘moderate’ (typically damaging) flooding is expected to occur, on average, more than 10 times as often as it does today, and can be intensified by local factors,” NOAA said in its 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report.
Assessing the state of Washington’s risks from sea level rise is made complicated by the fact that the land movement along its coast is highly variable, with some areas experiencing uplift while others are subsiding.
These variations are caused by movements of the Earth’s tectonic plates.
Photo Illustration by Newsweek/Getty Images
The state has been taking action to prepare for the potential impacts of rising sea levels, including through the three-year-long Washington Coastal Resilience Project. The project worked to identify at-risk areas and provide guidance to coastal communities, including several rural and tribal communities along the state’s coast.
The project also outlined the primary strategies for dealing with coastal hazards, including building hard defensive structures, using soft shore stabilization methods, using accommodation techniques to reduce flooding impacts, and avoiding development in risky areas.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will face off in their first in-person match-up of the 2024 general presidential election Thursday at 9 p.m. ET/6 p.m. PT in Atlanta in a debate hosted by CNN.
The debate is the first time the repeat opponents have squared off in person since the 2020 presidential election, and is happening earlier in the campaign cycle than is typical, before either have even accepted their party’s formal nomination.
The Supreme Court decided Thursday to allow emergency rooms in Idaho to carry out abortion procedures despite the state’s ban.
The decision in Moyle v. United States comes just one day after the opinion in the case was inadvertently posted and marks a blow to the six states that have enacted near-total abortion bans with narrow exceptions for life-threatening circumstances for the mother.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices decided to stay the lower court’s order striking down the Idaho statute, dismissing the state’s petition for redress.
“Federal law and Idaho law are in conflict about the treatment of pregnant women facing health emergencies,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her concurrence with the dismissal of the case.
While the justices did not reach the merits of the case, their decision marks a temporary victory for the Biden administration, which has championed access to abortion since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago. It also comes on the heels of the Supreme Court providing abortion access advocates an effective win by rejecting a separate challenge to federal rules that allow patients to obtain the abortion pill by mail.
“The Court’s order today means women in Idaho should once again have access to the emergency care that they need while the case proceeds in the lower courts,” Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra said in a press statement. “However, it does not change the fact that reproductive freedom is under attack.”
Becerra also said HHS will be simplifying the process of filing civil rights complaints for patients denied procedures under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
The Biden administration sued Idaho shortly after the Supreme Court overturned federal protections for abortion in June 2022 in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.
The Biden Department of Health and Human Services officials have argued that abortion procedures in certain extreme circumstances constitute medically stabilizing treatment under EMTALA. The agency has argued that Idaho law prevents doctors from providing such necessary care.
EMTALA was enacted in 1986 following several prominent cases of pregnant women being denied emergency care and delivery due to lack of health insurance. The law requires healthcare providers to facilitate necessary emergency care to a woman and her child in utero.
The administration contended during oral arguments in April that Idaho’s abortion restrictions violated EMTALA because it only permits an abortion in a medical emergency if it poses a threat to the mother’s life.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, on behalf of HHS, argued that certain medical emergencies may develop into life-threatening conditions if left untreated, but the law is unclear as to when the physician is legally allowed to induce an abortion in that case.
One condition discussed extensively during oral arguments was premature rupture of membranes, which occurs when the amniotic sac ruptures before labor begins. If left untreated, PROM can cause significant damage to a woman’s reproductive system and may develop into sepsis, a critical emergency.
“EMTALA unambiguously requires that a Medicare-funded hospital provide whatever medical treatment is necessary to stabilize a health emergency–and an abortion in rare situations is such a treatment,” Kagan wrote, agreeing with the Biden administration’s interpretation of the law.
Josh Turner, Idaho’s chief of constitutional litigation, said during oral arguments that no part of the state’s statute required that the medical condition either immediately or certainly threaten the mother for an abortion to be provided. Rather, according to Turner, the law intended that medical professionals could use their “good faith medical judgment” for when to perform an abortion procedure.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Kagan, pushed back against Turner’s argument in April, saying the law is too ambiguous in severe cases.
“Idaho law says the doctor has to determine not that there’s really a serious medical condition but that the person will die,” Sotomayor said during arguments in April. “That’s a huge difference.”
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted in favor of dismissing the case, in large part because both sides narrowed their initial positions during oral arguments.
While Idaho acknowledged that its law allows for abortions during extreme emergencies, even if to preserve the health of the mother rather than solely to prevent her death, the Biden administration also conceded that the mental health of the mother does not constitute a condition that requires an abortion under emergency circumstances.
“The dramatic narrowing of the dispute … has undercut the conclusion that Idaho would suffer irreparable harm under the preliminary injunction,” Barrett wrote. “Even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho’s ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact.”
Critics of the Biden administration’s argument highlight that EMTALA explicitly references the “unborn child” as a patient worthy of medical care four times, implying that an abortion-rights access piece of legislation would not have acknowledged a fetus with personhood status.
Prelogar argued before the court that Congress used the phrase “unborn child” in the legislation “to expand the protection for pregnant women so that they could get the same duties to screen and stabilize when they have a condition that’s threatening the health and wellbeing of the unborn child,” but that it “did nothing to displace the woman herself as an individual with an emergency medical condition.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a group involved in the efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade two years ago, backed Idaho and state Attorney General Raul Labrador’s efforts to fight the Biden administration’s suit.
Kristen Waggoner, ADF’s CEO and general counsel, argued in a statement that the “Biden administration lacks the authority to override Idaho’s law and force emergency room doctors to perform abortions.”
“I remain committed to protect unborn life and ensure women in Idaho receive necessary medical care, and I will continue my outreach to doctors and hospitals across Idaho to ensure that they understand what our law requires,” Labrador said. “We look forward to ending this administration’s relentless overreach into Idahoans’ right to protect and defend life.”
Idaho is not the only state facing friction between the Biden administration and EMTALA guidance.
Texas has a separate but similar legal fight against the Biden administration surrounding EMTALA, which began after the Democratic administration issued guidance to hospitals, reminding them that if a doctor believes an abortion is necessary to save a patient’s life, “the physician must provide the treatment.”
The Idaho abortion ban has remained in effect while the Supreme Court deliberated on its decision, and the Biden administration’s guidance saying EMTALA preempts state abortion bans is suspended.
Kavanaugh, who was part of the majority in Dobbs, stressed in his 2022 concurrence that the high court would no longer meddle in the contentious abortion debate.
“Instead, those difficult moral and policy questions will be decided, as the Constitution dictates, by the people and their elected representatives through the constitutional processes of democratic self-government,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, who dissented from the decision not to rule on the case’s merits, chided their colleagues for dodging the central matter.
“Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “That is regrettable.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Abortion rights advocates also rebuked the court for not taking a firmer stance on the merits of the case.
“It is now clear that the Supreme Court had the opportunity to hold once and for all that every pregnant person in this country is entitled to the emergency care they need to protect their health and lives, and it failed to do so,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.
Grizzly bears are returning to the North Cascades in Washington State, which has not had a grizzly sighting since 1996. The decision to repopulate the state’s mountainous region came after intense debate. Some viewed it as a positive conservation effort, while others worried about the potential harm towards humans and livestock.
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
To continue reading this article…
Create a free account
Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.
Already have an account? Sign in
Subscribe to The Week
Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.
Cancel or pause at any time.
Already a subscriber to The Week?
Unlimited website access is included with Digital and Print + Digital subscriptions.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
NYC pastor is sentenced to 9 years for fraud, including taking a single mom's $90,000
Fancy Dance (2024) – Movie Review
Read the Ruling by the Virginia Court of Appeals
Idris Elba Promotes Cryptocurrency in West Africa – BORGEN
Trump targets House Freedom Caucus chair in intra-party Republican primary feud
Tracking a Single Day at the National Domestic Violence Hotline
Trump classified docs judge to weigh alleged 'unlawful' appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith
Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling | CNN Politics