Hospitals across the country have long been operating under the same federal law This means they need to treat and stabilize all patients in the event that they have a medical emergency.
But in States that now ban abortions and there are limited or no health exceptions to those restrictions, medical providers face an inconceivable situation. They may decide to perform a medically mandatory abortion, violating state law, potentially leading to jail time and lack of their license, or they could select to not perform the abortion and violate federal law, potentially leading to the patient being subjected to significant harm suffers damage and even dies.
The Supreme Court will hear and rule on this legal conflict orally on April 24, 2024 Moyle v. United States. At the center of this case is the federal law often called Emergency Medical Treatment and Work Actor EMTALA, which was intended to forestall hospital emergency departments from refusing to treat patients who cannot pay.
It is the second abortion case the Supreme Court will hear in 2024. In the primary case, the court heard arguments about regulations affecting the nationwide availability of mifepristone, an abortion-inducing pill.
EMTALA requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to supply stabilizing care to all patients when their health – or, within the case of pregnant people, “the health of the woman or her unborn child” – is in “serious danger.”
Nearly all hospitals Many people within the country receive Medicare funding, so this law applies to just about all of them.
As Scientists of reproduction justiceWe imagine this case has implications that stretch well beyond abortion to other thorny issues, similar to the legal status of a fetus and the flexibility of state legislatures to mandate medical care.
Which led to the Supreme Court case on emergency abortions
Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the federal right to abortion in June 2022 Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organizationthe US Secretary of Health reminded doctors You must arrange for medical treatment if a pregnant person has a medical emergency. And if abortion is the very best “stabilizing treatment” to assist the pregnant person, they need to offer it.
The letter emphasized that this federal requirement applies even when the doctor practices in a state that has an abortion ban that doesn’t provide exceptions for “the life and health of the pregnant person.”
At least seven statesincluding Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Mississippi and North Dakota, currently have abortion bans that don’t provide an exemption for health reasons.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
EMTALA: Enforcement Questions
In August 2022 the USA sued Idahowho’re difficult their abortion ban. Idaho criminalizes virtually all abortions except to save lots of the mother's life. It doesn’t provide for an exception to guard the health of pregnant women.
However, EMTALA requires emergency care to forestall serious harm to the person's health – and not only to forestall death.
The U.S. argued that Idaho law applies “directly contradicts” EMTALA. Idaho argued that EMTALA requires virtually all states to supply abortions, even when the procedures conflict with state law. The District Court ruled that EMTALA's requirement for emergency medical care takes precedence over any state law on the contrary.
The case was appealed to the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. which was ultimately agreed on October 10, 2023to examine the case. In the meantime, state law left it untouched.
On November 20, 2023, Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle asked the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain the Idaho ban in effect. Idaho too called on the Supreme Court to review the case.
The Supreme Court will make a call in January 2024 agreed to examine whether EMTALA can override state abortion bans if the 2 conflict. It also allowed Idaho law to stay in effect while the case was litigated.
This signifies that in Idaho, no doctor can perform an abortion within the event of a serious medical emergency unless the pregnant person is near death.
What is at stake
How the Supreme Court ultimately decides on this case may have implications for abortion and beyond.
In the seven states where abortion bans conflict with EMTALA, patients could also be denied the suitable emergency care they otherwise would have received. For example, if a lady experiences one Ectopic pregnancyFor a condition during which the fertilized egg grows outside the uterus, healthcare providers' options for treatment are limited.
Depending on the stage of pregnancy, Ectopic pregnancies are frequently terminated with medication or surgery. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable. However, in the event that they will not be terminated, the fertilized egg would develop outside the uterus, posing an incredible risk to the life and fertility of the pregnant person.
Other pregnancy complications Conditions which will require abortion include separation of the placenta from the uterus, in addition to preeclampsia, eclampsia, and heart or kidney disease.
Doctors in states with abortion bans can face severe criminal penalties in the event that they perform an abortion in these cases. Instead, they could determine that the very best strategy to avoid criminal liability is to attend until the patient is on the verge of death. However, since it is inconceivable to accurately measure how close someone is to death, this approach risks the patient dying or suffering serious physical injury and losing their fertility.
The EMTALA case could also play a very important role in the continued debate about it whether fetuses are people. For example, Idaho argues that EMTALA requires that the pregnant patient and “the unborn child” be treated equally.
Another query that may arise is whether or not a hospital may refuse to supply abortions based on its moral or religious objections to abortion, even when EMTALA were to require an abortion.
If the Supreme Court ultimately rules that EMTALA doesn’t exceed state law, the ruling could open the door for states to try to limit other kinds of emergency medical care, similar to HIV treatments or mental health care.
Of course, the court could rule that EMTALA overrides state law and allows abortions to guard the pregnant person's health from serious harm. However, given the Court's decision within the Dobbs case, which returned the abortion issue to the states, this seems unlikely in our view.
image credit : theconversation.com