When it comes to abortion, Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson agree that the Supreme Court’s decision to avoid ruling on whether federal law protects abortion care in emergency situations was incorrect.
However, their reasons for this disagreement differ. Alito believes there is no federal law protecting abortion access and the court should have acknowledged this. On the other hand, Jackson argues that federal law does protect patients in need of abortion care, and failing to recognize this puts individuals in danger.
Jackson expressed frustration in her dissent, stating, “How long must pregnant patients wait for an answer? Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay.”
The issue at hand revolves around the interpretation of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funds to evaluate and provide stabilizing treatment to every patient in an emergency situation. The law leaves it to medical professionals to determine the presence of an emergency and the necessary treatment.
As some states enacted abortion bans with vague exceptions, the federal government sued Idaho over its ban, arguing that EMTALA preempted it. This sparked a legal battle over whether Idaho could prevent pregnant individuals from accessing abortions during medical emergencies.
Although the court’s decision allows emergency abortions to continue in Idaho for now, it also opens the door to challenges against EMTALA. Opinions by Alito and Barrett provide a legal roadmap for anti-abortion efforts aiming for a nationwide ban.
Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project warned that these opinions could empower extremists to further restrict abortion access.
Jackson’s concern about leaving patients and providers in limbo is met with full support from Alito, who argues that EMTALA never protected pregnant patients in need of abortion. Alito’s argument is based on the absence of the word “abortion” in EMTALA, the voting history of anti-abortion lawmakers, references to the “unborn child” in the law, and the potential for an increase in “elective” abortions in emergency rooms. However, his interpretation involves a significant distortion of legislative and legal history.
Contrary to Alito’s claims, EMTALA’s omission of the term “abortion” was intentional, allowing medical professionals the flexibility to provide stabilizing treatments as needed. Additionally, abortion was constitutionally protected care at the time of EMTALA’s passage, making it a non-issue for lawmakers. Nicole Huberfeld, a professor at Boston University, criticized Alito for fabricating legislative history to support his argument.
Alito’s focus on the references to the “unborn child” in EMTALA is also misleading. These references primarily relate to the duty of medical professionals to consider the fetus’s well-being in specific situations, rather than establishing fetal personhood. His dissent raises concerns about a potential nationwide abortion ban and the erosion of reproductive rights.
Barrett, Roberts, and Kavanaugh also raise concerns about Congress’s authority to tie EMTALA to Medicare funding, suggesting that such actions may exceed congressional spending powers. If this argument prevails, it could have far-reaching implications for various federal programs, including healthcare and social welfare initiatives.
Overall, Alito and his colleagues’ interpretations of EMTALA and its implications for abortion care highlight a broader ideological divide on reproductive rights and the limits of federal authority. If states were not required to adhere to these federal laws, it would lead to even more disorder and disagreement over social programs.
Source link
