Press Releases
06/27/2024
Attorney General Tong Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Decision Regarding Emergency Abortion Care
(Hartford, CT) – Attorney General William Tong issued a statement today regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, in which the Biden Administration had challenged Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. The Supreme Court today dismissed Idaho’s appeal in Moyle, which sought to overturn an injunction that renders unenforceable portions of Idaho’s abortion ban that are inconsistent with the requirements of EMTALA. As a result, the Court lifts its temporary stay of that injunction. Today women in Idaho are safer because doctors can provide all necessary emergency medical care- including an abortion to protect the health of the woman. However, today’s decision makes clear that there are serious divisions in the Court regarding EMTALA and its application in states with abortion bans.“This provides only a temporary reprieve for women in Idaho. The Court here had the opportunity to affirmatively protect the lives and health of women in the most severe of medical emergencies, and they failed. This threat, and severe state abortion bans, are not going away. We’re going to have to keep fighting these fights in every court, in every state where patients’ lives and reproductive freedom are at risk,” said Attorney General Tong.
The Biden Administration sued Idaho, arguing that the state’s near-total abortion ban conflicted with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency departments to provide all patients who have an emergency medical condition with the treatment required to stabilize their condition. A federal district court agreed with the Administration that pregnancy and miscarriage complications are emergency medical conditions requiring time-sensitive stabilizing treatment – including abortion, where medically indicated.
The majority of the Court today agree that the case should be dismissed, but for different reasons. Three justices, including the Chief Justice, assert that changes to the parties’ interpretation of the Idaho law and EMTALA during the pendency of this appeal support sending the case back to the 9th Circuit for further development. Two others assert that the court should not have accepted this premature appeal because Idaho is unlikely to succeed in challenging EMTALA, which requires an abortion to save the health of a woman despite Idaho’s abortion ban. The remainder of the justices disagree and believe that the issues and facts are clear and the Court should have reached the merits of the case, but reach different conclusions on the merits. Justice Jackson asserts that EMTALA requires an emergency abortion to save both the life and health of the patient, despite Idaho's exclusion of health as an exception to its abortion ban. Three justices, led by Justice Alito, reach the opposite conclusion, asserting that EMTALA does not require an abortion under any circumstances and, even if it did, Idaho is not bound by EMTALA.
The 9th Circuit will now need to decide the same issue that the Court today declines to reach. Ultimately, this issue will likely be before the Supreme Court in the future- either after this case is further along or a case raising similar issues- and the Court will be forced to decide the issue it avoids today. As Justice Jackson properly notes “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay.”
- Twitter: @AGWilliamTong
- Facebook: CT Attorney General
Media Contact:
Elizabeth Benton
elizabeth.benton@ct.gov
Consumer Inquiries:
860-808-5318
attorney.general@ct.gov