LANSING, Mich. (June 27, 2024) — Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to temporarily preserve emergency care for pregnant people under the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), a nearly 40-year-old federal law that requires hospitals to not turn away patients. But the court did not rule out future legal challenges against EMTALA protections for pregnant people. The decision came after the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case was briefly posted to the court’s website on Wednesday.
“It’s a relief that emergency care will remain available in Idaho for now. However, emergency care for pregnant people should never have been in question to begin with and the court should have easily tossed this case,” said Sen. Erika Geiss (D-Taylor). “This case shows us what’s at stake in the fight for reproductive freedom, especially as we face dual crises in abortion access and maternal mortality. Anti-abortion proponents will stop at nothing to disrupt reproductive freedom. My colleagues and I in the Michigan Senate know that the fight to protect reproductive freedom and justice is far from over and we will continue working to protect both.”
Sen. Geiss is a member of SiX’s Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council (RFLC), which is the nation’s only cross-state network of state legislators who support reproductive health, rights, and justice. Lawmakers turn to SiX for the tools, support, and connections they need to champion bold, progressive public policy. During April oral arguments, SiX RFLC lawmakers from Idaho, from where this case originates, spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court calling on the justices to uphold the protections of EMTALA.
“Our nation’s highest court had the opportunity to do the right thing and recognize the rights that EMTALA protects and put people over politics,” said Jennifer Driver, Senior Director of Reproductive Rights at State Innovation Exchange. “And once again, they failed. This decision makes abundantly clear that the court is leaving the door open for ongoing attempts to deny emergency abortion care for pregnant people. All the while, patients and providers across the country continue to navigate the confusion that comes from the never-ending legal ping-pong. These are real people who need care and protection, not political games. As it is, Black and Brown folks and those working to make ends meet face disproportionate barriers to health care. Removing EMTALA’s protections, even temporarily, would make pregnancy much more dangerous nationwide. The fact that a bill from the Idaho legislature still has the potential to upend emergency medical care for pregnant people in all 50 states goes to show the tremendous power that state legislatures hold. When anti-abortion politicians say we should leave abortion to the states, this is the chaos they create. Setting guidelines on emergency medical care is a federal responsibility – it cannot become yet another issue for states to regulate and contribute to the patchwork of reproductive health access nationwide.”
At least a third of pregnancies involve ER visits, and up to 15% include potentially life-threatening conditions. Pregnant people who live in rural areas, have low incomes, are Latinx, Black or Indigenous, or are immigrants visit ERs at disproportionate rates due to systemic barriers to health care.
While abortion access in Michigan remains protected through constitutional and legislative protections, such protections could be disrupted or removed with decisions from the federal legislative or judicial branches. As a state where abortion access and reproductive freedom are protected, such healthcare is still strained when people from states lacking abortion access and reproductive freedom need to travel to Michigan to seek the care they need. Even though this case originated in Idaho, it has strong and clear implications for the reproductive healthcare landscape across the country. It is truly disheartening that the SCOTUS indecision could still imperil pregnant people who may need abortion access.