Two years after the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, the health and wellness of pregnant people living in states that have banned abortion remains plagued by risk and uncertainty.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, decided that, for now, emergency abortions in Idaho are allowed when a woman’s health is at risk. The Court failed to assert that EMTALA includes emergency abortion care, regardless of state laws. Instead, challenges about EMTALA’s ability to ensure access to care will continue in the lower courts, including in a lawsuit Texas has brought against the Biden administration, potentially placing the health and safety of pregnant people in limbo again.
This decision follows on the heels of the Texas Medical Board issuing its final rule about medical exceptions to the state’s abortion ban. Even though the Board revised their initial draft following the serious concerns expressed by clinicians, patients who were harmed by the law, and lawyers, the new rule provides limited relief. Physicians in Texas will continue to struggle to know when they can legally intervene without risking civil penalties, loss of their medical licenses, or prison terms. This environment of fear is also likely to exacerbate well-documented racial disparities in maternal health.
Pregnant people deserve evidence-based healthcare that does not depend on where they live, and clinicians throughout the country should be able to manage pregnancy-related medical complications based on their own medical judgment. Policy makers, courts and agencies need to take responsibility for the full implications of their judgments and recommendations and help ensure that the health, safety, and reproductive autonomy of pregnant people are prioritized.
