In a case involving the Biden administration’s effort to mandate emergency room doctors to perform abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 ( EMTALA ), Supreme Court justices appeared split during oral arguments on Wednesday.
Liberal-leaning judges posed more provocative questions in questioning Idaho about what kinds of health emergencies would allow a person to have an contraception under state law, while conservative-leaning justices focused on the performance and legal application of EMTALA.
The Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS) issued guidance after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which claimed to have created a constitutional right to abortion. According to the guidance, EMTALA mandates that doctors perform abortions on patients in emergency rooms as part of” the stabilizing treatment necessary” to aid in a medical emergency. Hospitals that are not in conformity with the guidelines could shed funding and the ability to use Medicaid.
The Biden administration sued the State of Idaho over its pro-life rules after HHS issued its direction in July of 2022, alleging that it was in contravention of EMTALA’s interpretation. A city judge blocked the country’s pro- living law, an attempt which the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed. But within times, the , full , Ninth Circuit vacated its committee’s keep mind and granted en masse review , ( where 11 judges did rehear the situation ). The Supreme Court finally heard the appeal.
Idaho argued , that Congress did not write EMTALA to need emergency room doctors to perform pregnancies. The state argued that the original goal of the law was to stop “patient dumping,” where hospitals refuse to treat patients who ca n’t afford emergency care. In addition to making no mention of pregnancy, the laws, as written by Congress, expressly requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for both pregnant women and their newborn babies in crises, regardless of whether they are able to pay for the services.
The United States claimed that Idaho’s pro-life law, which makes it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion unless it is necessary to stop the mother’s death, is narrower than EMTALA’s definition of it, and that EMTALA even permits abortions when a person’s health is really endangered. The removal of a pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy is not regarded as an elective abortion under Idaho laws.
Event Features
EMTALA’s Addition of Privileges for the Unborn
Justice Samuel Alito pressed U. S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on the HHS’s conviction EMTALA includes pregnancy, despite the statute’s obvious protections for newborn babies.
Is n’t that an odd phrase to use in a law that requires abortions to be performed? Have you ever seen a legislation that uses the phrase “unborn kid”? Alito asked.  ,
” And it seems as though the doctor may try to eliminate any immediate risks to the baby.” However, having an abortion is against the law, he continued.  ,
Alito told Prelogar,” The majority of your argument now has been focused on the idea that Idaho law is a terrible law, and that may be the situation.” However, what you’re asking us to do is interpret this legislation, which was signed by President Reagan and was passed up during the Reagan management, to indicate that there is a requirement to perform an abortion in some circumstances, even if doing so would violate state law.
Justice Neil Gorsuch even brought up the issue while interrogating Idaho Constitutional Litigation and Policy Chief Josh Turner.
” We’re not saying, your honor, that EMTALA prohibits abortions”, Turner said. However, I believe that our contention regarding the 1989 newborn child amendment is that it would be odd for Congress to formally require care for unborn children while simultaneously mandating the termination of newborn children.
Does HHS Definition of’ Health ‘ Include Mental Health?
” Does the phrase’ wellness’ in EMTALA mean merely physical wellbeing, or does it also include cognitive health”? After Turner raised concerns that the Biden administration might finally perceive a broad definition of “health,” as has recently happened with health exceptions to abortion laws, Justice Alito contacted Prelogar.  ,
Because an pregnancy “would n’t do anything to address the underlying mental chemistry problem that’s causing the emotional health emergency in the first place,” Prelogar claimed EMTALA” may not require the pregnancy termination as the stabilizing attention.”
” This is not about mental health generally. This is about how ER doctors treat patients in an emergency room. And when a woman comes in with some grave mental health emergency, if she happens to be pregnant, it would be incredibly unethical to terminate her pregnancy”, Prelogar continued. She might not be able to provide any informed consent. Instead, the way you treat mental health emergency is to address what’s happening in the brain”.
In his rebuttal at the end of oral arguments, Turner argued that the Biden’s EMTALA “health” requirement is ultimately” not limited to physical health”.
” I know General Prelogar says that there is no circumstance where a mental health condition would necessitate stabilization with an abortion, but she’s just fighting with the American Psychiatric Association,” he said.” The very standards she’s setting up say control the EMTALA inquiry,” he said.
Thomas, Alito Skeptical Because EMTALA is About Funding
Prelogar and Justice Clarence Thomas were asked by Justice Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas why EMTALA has the power to preempt criminal law as a spending clause.
Are you aware of any other spending clause provisions that preclude criminal law? Thomas asked.
Prelogar replied:” With respect to criminal law in particular, Justice Thomas? Not immediately bringing up relevant cases is.
Because hospitals in Idaho have chosen to participate in Medicare, how can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize? asked Justice Alito. I do n’t understand how this fits into the spending clause’s overall theory.
Following Prelogar’s logic, Gorsuch responded with his own question about the federal government’s ability to “essentially regulate the practice of medicine and the states through the spending clause.”
” Congress might impose a national ban on gender reassignment surgeries. Through the use of its authority under the spending clause, it could ban abortion throughout the country. Right”? Gorsuch pressed.  ,
” Congress does have broad authority under the spending clause”, Prelogar replied. ” And yes, if it satisfies the conditions that the spending clause itself requires, then I think that that would be valid legislation”.
The Hyde Amendment ,  ,
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Prelogar whether the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, is honored in the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA.  ,
” It is common under EMTALA that hospitals are going to have to provide care where there’s not federal funding available”, Prelogar answered.
” The whole point of EMTALA … is it does n’t matter your circumstances, it does n’t matter whether you can pay or not. It does n’t matter the particulars of your situation”, Prelogar said. ” This is a guarantee you can get stabilizing treatment”.
Conscience Objections to Abortion ,
Turner argued that the federal government only protects individuals who oppose abortions from conscience and does not protect hospitals.
” And the same applies to Catholic hospitals, where hundreds of them treat millions of patients annually. Catholic hospitals who faithfully adhere to the ethical and religious directives are now required to perform abortions in accordance with the administration’s reading, according to Turner.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked Prelogar to address the allegation, which she denied.
” No, my friend was wrong. She retorted,” There are federal conscience protections that also apply to hospitals at the entity level.”
She went on to say that if a hospital consistently violated the EMTALA requirement to have enough staff to perform emergency abortions, she would think that HHS would eventually try to comply.
The hospital would terminate the Medicare funding agreement, she said,” and if it ultimately is just leaving itself in a position where it can never provide care.”  ,
In closing remarks, Turner said Idaho is “relieved to hear” that hospitals are also granted conscience protections.  ,
” But I think that it highlights the utter inconsistency of the administration’s reading”, he added. Therefore, EMTALA’s stabilization requirement cannot be so specific and include a requirement that conflicts directly with state law if it is general enough to avoid extra-textual protections like conscience protections.
For Breitbart News, Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter. You can follow her on X , @thekat_hamilton.
