Why Idaho's position in the Supreme Court emergency abortions case is concerning
![Why Idaho's position in the Supreme Court emergency abortions case is concerning](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/supreme_court-2149422357.jpg?w=900)
The right not to be turned away at a hospital’s emergency room remains protected, for now.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not decide this week whether states can stop hospitals from caring for patients with medical emergencies that require performing an abortion. Instead, the court held it should not have taken the case, so lower federal courts will continue with it.
In the meantime, doctors can continue to provide pregnant patients with emergency care without fear. But this is a temporary reprieve, and the stakes are even higher than they seem.
In Moyle v. US, the court restored a lower court’s decision that barred Idaho from enforcing its criminal law banning abortion when it conflicts with a federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has created a duty to provide care for any patient’s medical emergency, regardless of whether they can pay, what state they live in, or who they are, if the hospital is paid by Medicare, as nearly all hospitals are.
EMTALA requires acting to protect a patient’s health and has no exceptions, because carve-outs could harm patients. Idaho claimed that state lawmakers decide which medical treatments can exist, so the state argued its abortion ban, which only allows doctors to provide an abortion to prevent death but not to protect health, was not governed by EMTALA.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her concurring opinion, this is an easy question that the court could have decided to settle because federal law wins when there is a conflict between federal and state laws. This would have alleviated the substantial confusion that doctors and patients currently face. Under Idaho’s law, doctors fear being charged with a felony and losing their license to practice medicine for providing care, and so pregnant women have actually been airlifted to hospitals in other states for emergencies of all kinds, a problem discussed at length during oral arguments. The line between preventing death and protecting health is not as clear cut in real life as Idaho’s lawmakers like to pretend.
Because of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, state law must yield when it conflicts with federal law. EMTALA expressly preempts incompatible state laws, so when Idaho banned abortion, the state created its own conflict. This undercuts Idaho’s claim that the Biden administration overstepped when it reminded hospitals that EMTALA protects both health and life. The administration merely affirmed that EMTALA did not change after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, when the Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion just over two years ago.
Astonishingly, Idaho asked the court to elevate state policy above a federal rule. Even more concerning is that this idea was taken seriously by at least six of the nine justices.
Idaho’s position, though it did not win today, rings alarm bells for at least three reasons.
First, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh) and Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch) invite more litigation exploring the idea that laws enacted under Congress’s spending power are somehow different from other federal laws. The implications of this theory taking hold would be enormous.
Congress uses its constitutional spending power for some of the longest-standing social programs, including Medicare (health insurance for elderly and disable people), Medicaid (health insurance for low-income people that covers nearly half of all births in the U.S.), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (which covers kids who are low income but don’t qualify for Medicaid), and others like food and housing. Congress can spend money directly for these programs, or it can go through the states by giving them the money for such policies.
Medicare is purely federal, the states are not involved, and so money flows to health care providers. These funding recipients must follow federal law to receive the money, and federal law preempts state law.
Contrary to Barrett and Alito’s opinions, this is not a hard question at all. Federal law is the law of the land. Yet, in other cases, the justices have shown the same interest in hearing theories that would limit Congress’s spending power. Just last term, the court decided a Medicaid case where Indiana raised the same question, trying to claim that it did not need to follow federal rules for nursing homes because they are spending program rules. And states are currently challenging new regulations for Section 1557, the federal law protecting civil rights in health care settings, in the same way.
Limiting Congress’s spending power would undercut most federal social programs, and many of the state programs that rely on federal funding. We already have a situation after the Dobbs ruling where state laws have run amok, and the confusion and chaos that have resulted would get worse.
Second, due to the state-by-state chaos, patients travel more and farther to receive care that they need. So, the court will have to decide soon how robust the right to travel is — in other words, these are far from the last abortion cases the court will need to decide. After the court’s recent decision in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, mifepristone (which is used in medication abortion) remains legal. But states are already trying new approaches to challenge mifepristone, like Louisiana outlawing the drug, keeping the issue alive. Meanwhile Idaho and Texas laws banning abortion will continue to work their EMTALA challenges through federal courts.
Congress could amend EMTALA’s definition of “medical emergency” to head off some of this litigation. A “medical emergency” could be defined to include abortions where providing them would preserve a patient’s life or health in the judgment of the treating health care provider. Congress deferred to providers in deciding what is a medical emergency when it passed the law in 1986, but the inclusion of any necessary treatment has been the common understanding — until states excluded health from exceptions to criminal abortion laws.
Third, the confusion health care providers and patients are facing after the Dobbs ruling is unlikely to reverse course anytime soon. The court’s two abortion cases this term just kick the can down the road, potentially delaying them for another presidential administration with different priorities. In the meantime, patients suffer. No one having a medical emergency should be denied care due to the state they live in. Congress made this principle clear 40 years ago, and it may need to do so again.
Nicole Huberfeld is Edward R. Utley Professor of Health Law at Boston University School of Law and School of Public Health. She is co-director of the BU Program on Reproductive Justice.
Date: | |
Tag: | Abortion |
Filter
-
The New York Times - Top stories
Supreme Court Allows, for Now, Emergency Abortions in Idaho
A majority of the justices voted to dismiss the case, reinstating a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total abortion ban. The ruling mirrored a version inadvertently posted a day earlier.Abortion -
CBS News - Top stories
Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho
One day after a draft opinion became public, the Supreme Court made it official, ruling that emergency abortions when a woman's health is at risk could resume in Idaho, at least for the time being. Jan Crawford reports.Abortion -
NBC News - Politics
Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now
The Supreme Court has cleared the way, for now, for women in Idaho to receive emergency abortions when their health is in jeopardy, but the decision stills leaves many questions about the future of abortion laws. NBC’s Laura Jarrett reports for ...Abortion -
CBS News - Politics
Supreme Court says emergency abortions can be performed in Idaho
The dispute pitted Idaho's near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires Medicare-funded hospitals to offer abortions when needed to stabilize a patient's emergency medical condition.Abortion -
ABC News - Health
The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a limited ruling
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions for now in a procedural ruling that leaves key questions unansweredAbortion -
ABC News - Health
The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a reversal foreshadowed by a prematurely posted opinion
The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a reversal foreshadowed by a prematurely posted opinion -
CBS News - Top stories
Unpacking the Supreme Court's Idaho abortion decision
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that emergency abortions can be performed in Idaho after the opinion was unintentionally released Wednesday. The case focused on the split between Idaho's near-total abortion ban and a federal law that requires ...Abortion -
The Hill - Politics
Supreme Court's Idaho decision deepens abortion uncertainty
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Idaho’s challenge to a federal emergency care law is offering temporary relief to physicians and patients in the state, but it failed to close the door on whether federal law allows physicians to perform abortions ...Abortion -
CBS News - Top stories
Supreme Court rules on abortion, Purdue Pharma cases
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court released more major decisions on multiple cases as the term nears its end. The justices blocked the $6 billion settlement by the makers of the drug oxycontin because it also shielded members of the Sackler ...Abortion
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
John Dean says Nixon 'would have survived' Watergate under immunity ruling
John Dean, former White House counsel for the Nixon administration, said he believes former President Nixon “would have survived” the Watergate scandal if the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling issued MOnday, which largely shields former presidents ... -
The Hill - Politics
Evening Report — Supreme Court gives Trump broad immunity in landmark case
🔷 Plus: Democrats' Biden dilemma grows as polls trickle in after debate {beacon} Evening Report Monday, July 1 © Steven Hirsch/New York Post via AP, Pool Supreme Court gives Trump broad immunity in landmark case The Supreme Court on Monday ...Donald Trump -
The Hill - Politics
7 Democrats being floated as potential Biden replacements
President Biden’s campaign is intensely trying to quell speculation that he may drop out of the 2024 race following his lackluster debate performance last week. Most top Democrats have voiced support for Biden continuing in the race, while ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Trump edges out Biden in New Hampshire in post-debate poll
Former President Trump has a 2-point lead over President Biden in New Hampshire, according to a poll published Monday, showing significant gains for Trump after Biden’s poor debate performance last week. The Saint Anselm College poll found that 44 ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Rubio, Tim Scott would give Trump biggest boost as vice president: Poll
Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) are the two vice-presidential contenders who would offer the biggest boost to former President Trump if they were selected as his running mate, according to a new poll. A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll ...Donald Trump