Today, the movement for reproductive freedom scored… a delay. For the time being, pregnant people can get emergency abortions in Idaho.
In its decision, the Supreme Court declined to answer any of the substantive questions raised in Moyle v. United States. It’s still not clear if extremist states like Idaho will be able to override a federal law, like EMTALA, and outlaw emergency abortions in hospital ERs.
EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, was enacted in 1986. It ensures that anyone can go to an emergency room and get seen, stabilized, or transferred for any “emergency medical condition.” The law applies to all hospitals that accept Medicare, which means it applies to almost every hospital in the country.
EMTALA’s definition of “emergency medical condition” is critical to understanding Moyle. The definition includes any condition that could cause serious jeopardy to one’s health if not treated. Patients do not need to be at risk of imminent death. For example, if a pregnant person’s future reproductive health is at risk, that person has an emergency medical condition. And if the standard treatment is an abortion, EMTALA mandates that care.
After the Dobbs decision in 2022, Idaho implemented a near-total abortion ban that came into direct conflict with EMTALA. Though the state allows abortions to prevent a pregnant person’s death, it criminalized the health-preserving abortions that EMTALA requires. In response, the current administration took Idaho to court in August of 2022. The crux of the government’s argument was the following: Medicare-funded emergency rooms must follow EMTALA, even if that means providing abortions in emergency medical situations.
The Idaho federal district court agreed and put Idaho’s law on hold, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused Idaho’s request to reinstate the law. After that, Idaho asked the Supreme Court for an emergency application. SCOTUS responded by agreeing to hear the case and allowing Idaho’s draconian law to go back into effect.
While awaiting the court’s decision, Idaho’s health care system has continued to deteriorate. Pregnant patients have had to be airlifted out of state to get the care they need. Faced with the threat of criminal prosecution, OB/GYNs have continued to leave the Gem state. Idaho is ranked 51st (after Puerto Rico) in physician supply in the U.S. and in the bottom 10% of pregnancy outcomes in the U.S. Those statistics are worse in communities that already face barriers to health care access.
In today’s decision, SCOTUS decided to once again put Idaho’s abortion law on hold. (The court determined it had “improvidently granted” Idaho’s emergency application.) More importantly, though, the court decided that the case is not ready to be heard. The reasoning? Too much has changed since the suit began. Both parties have adjusted their positions, and Idaho’s law has changed twice.
So for now, emergency rooms in Idaho hospitals can still provide abortions in medical emergencies. The case will now proceed as regularly scheduled. One day, it will likely end up right back at SCOTUS.
Legal Voice and its allies filed an amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) brief in this case in March. In our brief, we explained how Idaho’s abortion ban would cause serious harm to people with disabilities.
