The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could determine whether doctors can provide abortions to pregnant women with medical emergencies in states that enact abortion bans. The Justice Department has sued Idaho over its abortion law, which only allows a woman to get an abortion when her life — not her health — is at risk.
The state law has raised questions about when a doctor is able to provide the stabilizing treatment that federal law requires. The federal law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires doctors to stabilize or treat any patient who shows up at an emergency room.
EMTALA requires emergency rooms to provide a medical exam to anyone who presents at their facility. Emergency rooms are required to stabilize patients if they do have a medical emergency before discharging or transferring them. And if the emergency room doesn’t have the resources or staff to properly treat that patient, staff are required to arrange a medical transfer to another hospital, after they’ve confirmed the facility can accept the patient.
EMTALA was enacted in 1986 in response to reports of patients being turned away from hospitals due to their inability to pay or lack of insurance. The law has been credited with saving lives and improving access to emergency medical care.
In the case before the Supreme Court, the Biden administration argues that Idaho’s law prevents ER doctors from offering an abortion if a woman needs one in a medical emergency. But Idaho’s attorney general has pointed out that EMTALA also requires hospitals to consider the health of the “unborn child” in its treatment, too.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the availability of abortions in states with strict restrictions. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Idaho, it could invite other states to pass similar laws that would further restrict access to abortion.
Anti-abortion advocates argue that state laws banning abortion can co-exist with EMTALA, as all 50 states offer life-saving care to women. However, many doctors say that it’s not as clear cut as anti-abortion advocates claim. Idaho’s state law banning abortion, except for the life of the mother, has left some doctors weighing if a patient is close enough to death to treat.
Most other states allow doctors to perform abortions to save the health of a mother. But, if the Supreme Court rules in Idaho’s favor, it could invite other states to pass restrictions without that exemption.
In a statement released Monday, Jack Resneck, the former president of the American Medical Association, said Idaho’s law forces doctors to withhold proper treatment for patients. He added that the state’s “dangerous standard cannot be applied to the real-life situations faced in emergency departments every day” and that “deteriorating patients don’t want their physicians delaying care.”
