Supreme Court debates use of EMTALA to apply to emergency abortions

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday about the Biden administration's attempt to use the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to force hospitals in states with abortion bans like Idaho to perform them in emergency situations.

The law was intended to require hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide stabilizing care for mothers in labor who are having medical emergencies. It never mentions abortion, but the Biden administration has begun penalizing hospitals that don't perform abortions in these situations, saying that they violated the act.

The Biden Justice Department argues that EMTALA is a federal law and trumps Idaho's near-total state abortion ban.

Conservatives argue that the law was intended to protect mothers and their unborn children, and should not be used to grant abortion access or force hospitals that do not perform abortions to do so.

“EMTALA says nothing about abortion. Congress has not silently mandated abortions that it won’t pay for, especially not in a statute amended to protect a pregnant mother’s unborn child,” attorneys for Mike Moyle (R), speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, wrote in a brief.

It's the second abortion-related case the court will consider this session: the first dealt with the accessibility of drugs meant to induce abortion in states with restrictions against abortions.