Experts in law, medicine, business, reproductive rights and gender justice urge Supreme Court to protect right to emergency abortion care
WASHINGTON, DC – On Thursday, March 28, 2024, a broad-based coalition of leading health care organizations, physicians, people who have been denied critical health and life-saving emergency abortion care, former HHS officials, members of Congress, states, cities, counties, prosecutors, public health experts, legal scholars, businesses, disability rights and intimate partner violence victim advocates, abortion funds, and more than 100 gender justice, reproductive rights and justice, civil rights, and labor organizations filed 27 amicus briefs with the Supreme Court.
The brief, in the Supreme Court cases Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, which will be heard April 24, outlines the devastating, lifelong consequences of eliminating federal protections that guarantee pregnant patients the right to emergency abortion care.
This case raises two fundamental questions that could affect the future of our nation: first, whether the Supreme Court will interpret the law to give special disadvantage to women and pregnant women when it comes to federal protections, and second, whether states can carve out unsatisfactory exceptions to federal law, thus subverting fundamental principles of federalism.
“After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, EMTALA became an even more important protection to ensure all pregnant women can get the medical care they need and deserve. These amicus briefs demonstrate broad support for longstanding nationwide coverage of health care for pregnant women with emergency medical conditions,” said Gretchen Borchelt, vice president of reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center. “Removing these protections threatens people’s health and lives and exacerbates an already severe maternal health crisis that disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, people in rural communities, people with disabilities, low-income people, immigrants, and others who already face significant barriers to accessing health care. It is unacceptable that we should be forced to petition the Court to protect us from unnecessary suffering and death. Courts must uphold EMTALA’s protections for pregnant women.”
“For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has provided the foundation for the emergency medical safety net and has been supported by lawmakers across the ideological spectrum,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “Extremist efforts to ban abortion, even in emergency situations, have created bad laws and bad medicines that are in direct opposition to EMTALA’s mandate and fundamental principles of medical ethics. Pregnant patients, like everyone else, have a right to the stable emergency care required by EMTALA, and state laws that conflict with this federal protection are unlawful. Democracy Forward will continue to support the patient protections provided by EMTALA and will oppose state efforts to weaken these protections. We urge the Supreme Court to protect the right to emergency medical care for everyone in this country.”
“This case demonstrates the importance of EMTALA’s obligation for Medicare-funded hospitals to provide reliable emergency care to all who need it. Patients with emergency pregnancy complications are vulnerable to death or lifelong illness and have a right to the treatment they need to protect their lives and health, guaranteed by federal law. Cohen Milstein is proud to support and assist the National Women’s Law Center and its coalition partners in their work to protect pregnant people,” said Allison Dyke, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll LLP.
Highlights from the 27 abstracts submitted include:
Leading medical and public health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Public Health Association, a coalition of 678 Idaho physicians and providers, multiple physician organizations, and 133 prominent deans and professors in fields spanning medical professions, filed briefs explaining that abortion care is necessary to treat a variety of emergency pregnancy complications and arguing that if pregnant women are excluded from EMTALA, state abortion restrictions such as Idaho’s could force providers to choose between following the law or their expertise, making it a crime to provide health- and life-saving care. Patients who have been denied health- and life-saving abortion care, as well as more than 100 local and national gender justice, reproductive rights and justice, disability rights, civil rights, and labor organizations, filed briefs highlighting the widespread harms that EMTALA’s exclusion of pregnant people in emergency situations would cause, particularly to those who most need but are least likely to receive pregnancy-related emergency care, and that the decision to gut EMTALA would further exacerbate the country’s terrible maternal health crisis, especially for Black, Indigenous, and other women of color. The 258 members of Congress, former HHS officials, and state and local government officials urged the Supreme Court to protect the primacy of federal law and ensure Congress’ intent was followed, making clear that EMTALA’s legislative text and longstanding mandate indicate that hospitals must provide abortion care when it is a “necessary stabilizing treatment” for a patient’s “emergency medical condition,” and that regulators have understood EMTALA to require this care for nearly 40 years. Legal scholars and experts, including law professors specializing in procedural, jurisdictional, and constitutional issues, filed a brief explaining that EMTALA’s statutory text clearly requires hospitals to provide abortion care when it is necessary to stabilize an emergency, regardless of whether state law restricts or prohibits abortion. They countered Idaho’s arguments that seek to undermine the primacy of federal law and pointed to the anomaly of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case this term and leave Idaho’s ban in full effect before lower courts had even had a chance to rule. Business leaders from companies like Bumble, Lyft, and Yelp explain that restricting reproductive health care is bad for the economy and bad for business, and that restrictions like the one Idaho imposes will lead to maternity care deserts, a lack of workforce diversity, and an inability to recruit and retain top talent when pregnant people and their families are forced to make family and career decisions based on where they can be assured of adequate health care.
For more information on each amicus brief filed, click here.