Rep. Carbajal Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Case Determining Women’s Ability to Get Lifesaving Emergency Medical CareSupreme Court declined to affirm the federal law guaranteeing doctors ability to perform emergency medical care to save a mother’s life, leaving health and lives of pregnant women at risk in states with abortion bans
Washington,
June 27, 2024
Tags:
Voting and Civil Rights
Congressman Salud Carbajal (CA-24), a member of the Pro-Choice Caucus, issued the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court announcement today sending a decision on Americans’ access to emergency medical care back to lower courts. “Everyone experiencing a health emergency should be able to get the care they need – including a potentially life saving abortion – without delay or political inference. That is what federal law guarantees. While today’s decision is a temporary reprieve for the women of Idaho, I am disappointed the Supreme Court chose not to affirm that federal laws protecting women’s lives should supersede any state abortion ban,” said Rep. Carbajal. “The radical Supreme Court is trying to walk back its decision to intervene in this case, despite having implemented a stay that caused irreparable harm to women who had to be airlifted out of state to get critical care. This ruling today continues that uncertainty as the litigation continues in lower courts.” For nearly 40 years, EMTALA has guaranteed that in an emergency, patients will receive the stabilizing care they need, regardless of any factor—including pregnancy. Studies show that at least a third of pregnancies involve ER visits, and up to 15% include potentially life-threatening conditions. Rep. Carbajal and more than 200 other Congressional Democrats submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the cases considered for this ruling. The lawmakers argued that the congressional intent, text, and history of EMTALA made it 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 preempted Idaho’s abortion ban in emergency situations that present a serious threat to a patient’s health. Their amicus brief asked the Supreme Court to affirm the district court’s ruling in the case, which the Court failed to do today. Earlier this month, Rep. Carbajal issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling that denied an attempt to ban the commonly used abortion medication mifepristone, which also rejected the case on a limited basis. |
