Back to Resources

Supreme Court to Decide Future of Emergency Abortion Care in Idaho v. United States

This term, the Supreme Court is poised to decide whether state abortion bans will override a federal act that protects all patients who present to the ER in medical emergencies via the consolidated cases Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States.

Let's be clear. This isn't just about abortion; it's about the right to life-saving care and another reminder of just how far Donald Trump and Republicans will go in rolling back our reproductive freedom.

Here's what you need to know about the case and how you can take action.

  • Background

    • What You Need to Know About Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States

    In 2020, the Idaho State Legislature passed a sweeping abortion ban following Donald Trump's appointment of anti-abortion extremists to the Supreme Court in anticipation of the court overturning Roe v. Wade. On August 25, 2022, just months after Donald Trump's dreams came true and the Supreme Court rescinded the constitutional right to an abortion, Idaho's ban took effect. Subsequent amendments have since made it even more draconian, outlawing nearly all abortions except in the most extreme cases: where necessary to save a woman's life, manage ectopic pregnancies, or under certain conditions of rape or incest — each path fraught with as many bureaucratic hurdles as Idaho Republicans could put into place.

    Enter: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)

    Idaho's ban is in stark contradiction to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Action (EMTALA, pronounced "em-TAHL-uh"), which ensures that anyone experiencing an emergency medical condition that poses a serious risk to their life or health is entitled to necessary stabilizing treatment. This includes emergency abortion care. At least one-third of pregnancies involve ER visits, and there are many common pregnancy-related conditions that can require emergency care, such as preeclampsia or water breaking prematurely. For some patients, an abortion is the appropriate treatment and may be necessary to save their life.

    Idaho's law criminalizes abortion care unless necessary to prevent the death of the patient, stripping away health protections of people in dire medical emergencies and placing healthcare providers in a potentially deadly catch-22: face criminal charges for providing essential care or jeopardize patients' health and lives by withholding it.

    Devastating Impacts on Healthcare

    The implications of this regressive law are already visible. It has precipitated a healthcare crisis in Idaho, driving away obstetricians and gynecologists and leading to the shutdown of essential maternity wards. For example, in March 2023, one hospital was forced to close its maternity ward, directly citing the toxic legal and political climate as a key reason. This not only deprives women of necessary medical care but also escalates the risk in already high-stake situations, creating vast deserts of pregnancy care across the state.

    The Legal Battle and Supreme Court Complicity

    The enforcement of this ban has been hotly contested in court. Initially, a federal district court recognized the conflict with EMTALA and blocked the ban in emergencies. However, this relief was short-lived as a Ninth Circuit panel, comprised of judges appointed by Trump, reversed this decision, allowing Idaho to temporarily enforce the ban even in medical emergencies. This judicial back-and-forth culminated in the Supreme Court's alarming decision to permit the enforcement of Idaho’s ban while legal challenges continue, clearly disregarding the health risks to pregnant women.

    The Supreme Court’s Dangerous Game

    The Supreme Court’s decision to prioritize a review of Idaho's restrictive laws over the immediate health concerns of women is a dire reflection of its current stance on reproductive rights. This not only betrays the fundamental principles of EMTALA but also signals a readiness to undermine federal protections in favor of state-imposed bans, setting a dangerous precedent that could restrict emergency medical care across the country.

    If you're interested in learning even more, check out this great explainer from our friends at the National Women's Law Center.

  • What's at Stake

    • What's At Stake

    The stakes of a detrimental ruling on this case are catastrophically high. If the ban is upheld, the horrific scenario in Idaho for pregnant patients and healthcare providers alike will become permanent. Physicians and medical staff face the terrifying prospect of prosecution—risking fines, prison time, and the loss of medical licenses. But this isn’t just about Idaho. The implications ripple out nationally, with anti-abortion extremists using these cases as templates to challenge and overturn emergency abortion care across various states.

    Chilling Effects on Medical Judgment

    The overarching intent of such stringent abortion bans is to instill a chilling effect on healthcare providers, going far beyond the direct limitations on abortion procedures themselves. This strategy is not about enhancing patient care but about enforcing a political agenda through the weaponization of legal fear.

    For example, consider the plight of Kate Cox in Texas: faced with a diagnosis of a lethal fetal condition that endangered her own health and future fertility, she found herself battling in court just to exercise her rights under existing health exceptions to Texas' restrictive laws. Despite clear medical advice and readiness for the procedure, the Texas Supreme Court denied her relief, and the state Attorney General explicitly threatened prosecution against any local help she might receive. Kate was forced to flee Texas to seek safe and legal care—choices and movements borne out of desperation and systemic failure.

    In another heart-wrenching case from Texas, Yeni Glick tragically died from complications that could have been mitigated had she been offered the option of an abortion. Fear of prosecution has reached such an intensity that doctors are reluctant even to inform patients of legally available options out of state.

    Federal vs. State Law: A Legal Paradox

    The core issue here extends to the basic conflict between state and federal law. EMTALA explicitly preempts state law where direct conflicts arise, yet, in these instances, MAGA Republicans want state laws to override fundamental federal protections. This legal paradox showcases a troubling trend of "captured courts" and anti-abortion extremists who exploit the law to dismantle established rights and protections.

    Idaho’s law and similar statutes' potential to supersede federal mandates like EMTALA undermines legal precedents and poses severe risks to public health and reproductive rights nationwide. The fight against these laws is not merely a legal battle; it is a crucial stand for medical ethics, healthcare, and basic human dignity.

  • Congress


    • Congressional Republicans Continue to Show Us Who They Are (Anti-Abortion Extremists)

    Republican members of Congress prove time and time again that they just can't resist the urge to attack reproductive rights, and this Supreme Court case is no exception. 121 Republican members of Congress have aligned themselves with the restrictive Idaho abortion ban, challenging the tenets of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and inviting the deadly consequences that could result from this Supreme Court decision. These Republicans have filed an amicus brief in support of Idaho's law, which has starkly narrow exceptions and conflicts with federal law requiring hospitals to stabilize patients with emergency medical conditions. 

    This brief is more than a mere legal stance; it represents just the latest concerted push to weaponize the legal system to attack abortion nationwide. By siding with state law over federal protections, these lawmakers are advocating for a world where pregnant patients are denied necessary medical interventions until they are on the brink of death and doctors who provide emergency care are criminalized. It’s a clear signal that the sanctity of life-saving healthcare is being overshadowed by a political agenda aimed at banning abortion outright, consequences be damned.

    Check the list below to see if your Republican senator or Representative is on the list.

    Does Your Republican Member of Congress Support Idaho's Abortion Ban?

    In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to consider the conflict between state abortion restrictions and federal patient protection mandates, 121 Republican members of Congress have filed an amicus brief. They argue for state primacy over federal law in cases of emergency medical treatment, undermining patient health in critical situations and criminalizing doctors who provide care. Here are their names:

  • Take Action

    • Take Action Now

    From abortion bans to SCOTUS cases that could criminalize doctors and harm patients, there's too much at stake to sit on the sidelines. Here's how you can get involved right now to help spread the word about Idaho v. United States and continued Republican attempts to roll back our reproductive rights nationwide.

    A cell phone with a heart

    Phonebank With Us on May 2nd to Tell Voters that Abortion is on the Ballot

    Join us on the anniversary of the leaked opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade to talk to voters in key states to tell them just how much is at stake this November.

    REGISTER NOW
    A picture of the U.S. Capitol on a dark background

    Submit a Letter to the Editor About Your Republican's Support of Putting Pregnant Patients' Lives in Danger

    If your Republican member(s) of Congress were part of the group that signed an amicus brief in support of Idaho's abortion ban and its deadly consequences, make sure your neighbors know about it.

    SUBMIT NOW
    Social media like and love buttons

    Use our Idaho v. United States Digital Toolkit to Tell Voters What's at Stake

    The vast majority of people don't know anything about this Supeme Court case that could criminalize doctors and prevent pregnant women from getting emergency abortion-care. Help us spread the word.

    GET THE TOOLKIT
    Project 2024: Majority Over MAGA

    Sign Up for Project 2024 to Defeat MAGA This November

    Indivisible is launching Project 2024: Majority over MAGA to build a new Democratic trifecta, reelect President Biden, and mobilize a majority for our reproductive freedom, but we need your help.

    GET INVOLVED
    An image of a cell phone

    Demand Your Republican Rep Explain Their Opposition to Emergency Abortion Care

    121 Republicans filed a brief urging SCOTUS to decide that state abortion bans trump federal protections for emergency care, putting pregnant patients’ lives and health at risk - demand an explanation from your GOP Representative if they signed on!

    CALL NOW
    A cell phone

    Demand Your Republican Senator Explain Their Opposition to Emergency Abortion Care

    121 Republicans filed a brief urging SCOTUS to decide that state abortion bans trump federal protections for emergency care, putting pregnant patients’ lives and health at risk - demand an explanation from your GOP Senator if they signed on!

    CALL NOW

    Related Resources