U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Say Whether Hospitals Must Provide Stabilizing Abortion Care
“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay.” —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
In its second major abortion case of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 refused to say whether federal law requires hospitals to provide stabilizing abortion care.
The case involved the State of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, which conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)—a long-time federal law that requires hospital emergency rooms to provide “stabilizing treatment,” including emergency abortion care. The U.S. Department of Justice sued Idaho, arguing that the state’s abortion ban conflicts with EMTALA by preventing Idaho hospitals from stabilizing patients in need of emergency care.
In its decision, the Court dismissed the case and reinstated a lower court ruling blocking Idaho’s abortion ban to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA.
“We are relieved for the moment, but hardly celebrating. The Court kicked the can down the road on whether states with abortion bans can override EMTALA,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Women with dire pregnancy complications and the hospital staff who care for them need clarity right now.”
The ruling leaves millions of people in states banning abortion vulnerable since hospitals have been reluctant to provide emergency abortion care due to the risk of severe criminal penalties under state abortion bans.
The Center submitted an amicus brief in the case, Idaho v. United States and Moyle et al. v. United States, on behalf of pregnant women in states with abortion bans who were denied or delayed care for obstetrical emergencies. The brief argues that although states with abortion bans often have “exceptions” for people who experience life-threatening pregnancy complications, these exceptions do not in reality offer adequate protections.
“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
U.S. Supreme Court Leaves Access to Abortion Medication Unchanged
In June, the Court ruled that anti-abortion plaintiffs suing the FDA do not have standing.
Related Posts
U.S. Supreme Court Opinion: June Medical Services v. Russo
Read the Supreme Court's 2020 opinion in the June Medical Services v. Russo case.
Legal Experts Urge the Supreme Court to Strike Down Abortion Restriction in June Medical Case, Stressing Precedent and Rule of Law
Legal Experts Urge the Supreme Court to Strike Down Abortion Restriction Briefs by the American Bar Association, constitutional scholars, and...
Medical Groups, Legal Experts, People Who Had Abortions, and Advocates Join Fight Against Louisiana’s Anti-Abortion Law
ABA, AMA and other diverse supporters unite to urge U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Louisiana law designed to shut down...
