Reproductive Equity Now Statement After U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses EMTALA Abortion Case Without Ruling on Merits
Supreme Court allows for proceedings on the case to continue in lower courts
In the meantime, emergency abortion care can commence in Idaho, though Texas ban remains
BOSTON (June 27, 2024) – The United States Supreme Court today issued a decision in the consolidated cases of Moyle & Idaho, et al. v. United States, allowing emergency abortion care in Idaho for now, but likely delaying a final opinion on the case until there is more litigation in the lower courts. This case concerns whether state abortion bans can supersede requirements under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, otherwise known as EMTALA, and force doctors to turn away patients suffering emergency pregnancy complications.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted”, meaning the Supreme Court should not have accepted the case in the first place. It did not rule on the merits of the case, and the decision allows legal proceedings to continue in the lower courts.
“I want to be clear: this fight is not over. We know litigation in this case will continue in the coming months, and we would not be surprised to see this question before the Supreme Court again. It’s hard to celebrate this temporary relief because the question before the Court is so outrageous, insulting, and terrifying in the first place,” said Rebecca Hart Holder, President of Reproductive Equity Now. “A ban on emergency abortion care is a cruel attack on bodily autonomy and the life and health of pregnant people. Anti-abortion extremists want to put politicians in exam rooms, stand in the way of emergency medical care, and ban access to abortion in any and all circumstances.
Hart Holder continued, “This is what’s at stake this Election Day—and the Supreme Court Justices know it. That’s why the Court kicked this decision down the road, surely until after November. Now, we need every person to get off the sidelines and in this fight with us to elect reproductive equity champions up and down the ballot to protect our access to care and our loved ones’ lives. Together, we will show the anti-abortion movement that their extremism will not be tolerated in the courts, in Congress, or in our communities.”
Without the Supreme Court ruling on the merits of this case, a Fifth Circuit Court decision exempting pregnant people from EMTALA protections in Texas remains in place. The Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court decision which barred the federal government from enforcing EMTALA in Texas, even if a patient requires an emergency abortion. The Supreme Court did not hear this case, and today’s ruling continues to leave pregnant people in danger.
Abortion care remains legal and available in New England states. Earlier this week, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed an Executive Order protecting access to emergency abortion care in Massachusetts. In accordance with the Executive Order, the Department of Public Health (DPH) issued guidance to hospitals that as a condition of licensure in Massachusetts, all hospitals must comply with all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations pertaining to hospitals, including EMTALA.
Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the enforcement of Idaho’s extreme abortion ban, the state has lost one-fifth of its practicing OB/GYNs, leaving maternity care deserts hundreds of miles wide across the state. Pregnant patients experiencing emergency complications have been forced to be airlifted out of state for care. The state is left with one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the country. With today’s dismissal, emergency abortion care can commence in Idaho again.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, one in three women live in states with no abortion access. In states with strict abortion bans, pregnant people are already being turned away from receiving emergency care when they are experiencing medical duress related to pregnancy. The Biden Administration affirmed in 2022 that EMTALA protects physicians and health institutions from prosecution when providing labor and abortion care to patients experiencing medical complications. This guidance extends to both situations where the continued life of the pregnant patient is at risk and situations where the continued health of the pregnant patient is at risk. Physicians retain the right of refusal even under EMTALA.
###
