Supreme Court Says Idaho Hospitals Don’t Have to Provide Emergency Abortions Under Federal Law, for Now
High Court reinstates Idaho abortion ban despite federal law requiring hospitals to stabilize patients in emergency rooms; the Court will hear the case in full this April
01.05.24 (PRESS RELEASE) – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding an Idaho abortion ban and lifted a court order protecting access to emergency abortion services in Idaho. The DOJ argues that the near total ban conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)—a federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to patients who come to emergency rooms. While a lower court agreed with the DOJ in August 2022 and blocked the ban as it applies to patients who fall under EMTALA, the Supreme Court lifted that injunction today and reinstated the abortion ban in full, at least for now. The Court will hear the case on the merits later this term. Until then, Idaho hospitals are not obligated to stabilize pregnant people with dire pregnancy complications in need of abortion care.
Statement from Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights:
“It is deeply troubling that the Supreme Court is intervening in this case, at this stage. It is already dangerous to be pregnant in states with abortion bans. The Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling could have implications for the way hospitals nationwide treat pregnant people. EMTALA is currently the only federal protection for patients who need emergency abortions. If the Supreme Court eviscerates that, there is no doubt that people will die. Patients with serious pregnancy complications will be turned away from emergency rooms with their lives on the line and nowhere to go. The public health crisis unleashed by the overturning of Roe will accelerate. EMTALA was enacted to protect every person’s right to receive stabilizing treatment in an emergency room, whatever treatment is medically indicated, including an abortion.”
Statement from Jen Adkins, lead plaintiff in Adkins v. Idaho, who was denied an abortion in Idaho despite a lethal fetal condition and threats to her health:
“I am not being hyperbolic when I tell you that if you are someone who is, can, or will be pregnant in the state of Idaho, this state has said loud and clear that it does not care about you or your family, however much they want to tout that this protects the ‘unborn’. Idaho will willingly let you die.”
Fourteen states currently have total abortion bans. While most of those bans have very narrow exceptions for the life of the pregnant patient, the exceptions have not been working in practice. Doctors are unclear who qualifies for the exceptions, and they are terrified to perform any abortions as they face years in prison for violating the bans. The Center has filed lawsuits in Idaho, Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota to clarify the “medical emergency” exceptions written into the bans in those states and broaden the circumstances in which physicians can provide medically necessary abortions.
####
MEDIA CONTACT: [email protected]