Court Gavel

EMTALA, a federal law that mandates hospitals receiving Medicare funding to provide necessary stabilizing treatment to patients experiencing medical emergencies, has become a focal point in the ongoing national debate over abortion rights. EMTALA includes instances where abortion is deemed necessary.

DELAWARE- Delaware's U.S. Senators Tom Carper, Chris Coons and Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester have joined 255 Members of Congress in submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief pertains to Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, consolidated cases that address the implications of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in the context of abortion care. 

EMTALA, a federal law that mandates hospitals receiving Medicare funding to provide necessary stabilizing treatment to patients experiencing medical emergencies, has become a focal point in the ongoing national debate over abortion rights. EMTALA includes instances where abortion is deemed necessary.

The amicus brief follows the controversial 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. After this decision, Idaho implemented a stringent anti-abortion law criminalizing the termination of pregnancies, except in life-threatening situations. The United States sued Idaho, arguing that the state law contradicts EMTALA when abortion, claiming that while not necessary to avert imminent death, is still essential to stabilize a patient's emergency medical condition. A district court sided with this view, interpreting EMTALA as requiring hospitals to provide abortions in certain emergency situations.

In their brief supporting the U.S. Justice Department, the lawmakers urge the Supreme Court to uphold the district court’s ruling. They emphasize the broad language of EMTALA, asserting that it includes providing abortion as necessary stabilizing treatment in some emergency cases, contrary to the restrictions imposed by Idaho's law.

The brief also highlights the real-world implications of Idaho’s abortion ban, noting the mass departure of OB-GYNs from the state and the closure of maternity services in rural hospitals. The lawmakers emphasize the heightened risk to pregnant patients, arguing that federal law should not permit such endangerment.

Also, the brief clarifies that EMTALA's references to "unborn child" were intended to expand, not limit, hospitals' obligations to provide necessary care, including abortion in certain circumstances.

Addressing a counterargument from Idaho and its supporters, the Members of Congress assert that the Supremacy Clause applies irrespective of whether a federal law, like EMTALA, is enacted under Spending Clause authority. They argue that states cannot enact laws that undermine the objectives of federal legislation.

The Delaware lawmakers, along with their congressional colleagues, conclude by requesting the Supreme Court to affirm the district court's decision. They hold that EMTALA obligates Medicare-participating hospitals to provide abortion care when it qualifies as necessary emergency medical treatment. The Supreme Court is set to hear these cases this April.