Congresswoman Lee Joins Amicus Brief Urging SCOTUS to Affirm Hospitals’ Requirement to Provide Emergency Stabilizing Abortion Care, Preempts Idaho’s Draconian Abortion Ban

WASHINGTON – Today, Congresswoman Susie Lee (NV-03) joined 257 Members of Congress in submitting an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a district court decision that would protect emergency stabilizing care, including abortion care, for women nationwide — superseding draconian state bans like the one recently passed in Idaho. 

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide necessary “stabilizing treatment” to patients experiencing medical emergencies, which can include abortion care. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case on whether state abortion bans trump EMTALA’s long-standing requirements, and whether states can force doctors to turn away patients suffering emergency pregnancy complications. The consolidated case — Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States — has nationwide implications for the right to emergency abortion care, and for the constitutional principle that when there is a conflict between an act of Congress and a state law, the federal law reigns supreme. 

After the Dobbs decision in 2022, a draconian anti-abortion law in Idaho went into effect that makes it a felony for a doctor to terminate a patient’s pregnancy unless it is “necessary” to prevent the patient’s death. The United States sued the State of Idaho, arguing that the state’s law is preempted by EMTALA in those circumstances in which abortion may not be necessary to prevent imminent death, but still constitutes the necessary stabilizing treatment for a patient’s emergency medical condition. The district court agreed; it held that in those limited, but critically important situations, EMTALA requires Medicare-participating hospitals to provide abortion as an emergency medical treatment. 

In their brief in support of the Justice Department, the lawmakers ask the Supreme Court to uphold the district court’s ruling and further protect abortion care in Medicare-participating hospitals nationwide. They argue that the congressional intent, text, and history of EMTALA make clear that covered hospitals must provide abortion care when it is the necessary stabilizing treatment for a patient’s emergency medical condition, and that EMTALA preempts Idaho’s abortion ban – and any other similar attempted abortion ban – in emergency situations that present a serious threat to a patient’s health. 

“[T]he 99th Congress passed EMTALA to ensure that every person who visits a Medicare-funded hospital with an ‘emergency medical condition’ is offered stabilizing treatment,” the Members write in their amicus brief. “Congress chose broad language for that mandate, requiring hospitals that participate in the Medicare program to provide ‘such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition.’… That text—untouched by Congress for the past three decades—makes clear that in situations in which a doctor determines that abortion constitutes the ‘[n]ecessary stabilizing treatment’ for a pregnant patient… federal law requires the hospital to offer it. Yet Idaho has made providing that care a felony, in direct contravention of EMTALA’s mandate that it be offered.” 

Importantly, the Members note that in this case, “respecting the supremacy of federal law is about more than just protecting our system of government; it is about protecting people’s lives. If this Court allows Idaho’s near-total abortion ban to supersede federal law, pregnant patients in Idaho will continue to be denied appropriate medical treatment, placing them at heightened risk for medical complications and severe adverse health outcomes. And health care providers, forced to let Idaho’s abortion law take precedence over their medical judgment about their patients’ best interests, will continue their exile from Idaho, creating maternity-care ‘deserts’ all over the state.” 

The Members point to numerous reports of OB/GYNs leaving Idaho en masse since the state’s abortion ban went into effect — Idaho has since lost fifty-five percent of its maternal-fetal medicine specialists and three rural hospitals have shut down maternity services altogether. At the same time, women are being forced to seek care in states like Nevada as they search for safe harbor for emergency abortions, overwhelming local clinics which are already experiencing high demand. Congresswoman Lee has introduced legislation to help ameliorate this issue and help women access the reproductive health care services they need. 

“These are not hypothetical scenarios. Because Idaho’s abortion ban contains no clear exceptions for the ‘emergency medical conditions’ covered by EMTALA, physicians are forced to wait until their patients are on the verge of death before providing abortion care. The result in other states with similar laws has been ‘significant maternal morbidity,’” write the Members, pointing to harrowing reports of pregnant women with severe health complications being denied necessary abortion care. “Federal law does not allow Idaho to endanger the lives of its residents in this way.” 

The amicus brief was signed by 49 U.S. Senators and 209 U.S. Representatives including Congresswoman Susie Lee. It can be read in full here. 

###