The Supreme Court has since dismissed these cases as improvidently granted – meaning that the Court should not have accepted the cases in the first place, but made no comment on the subject of the case itself. This decision means that while the case goes back to the lower courts, emergency abortions to protect a pregnant person’s health will be allowed in the state of Idaho; however it does not unequivocally affirm that emergency abortion care across the nation is protected by federal law, and thus keeps the door open for other states to enact similar laws. In fact, there is already another case raised by the state of Texas regarding the validity of EMTALA in protecting emergency abortion care.
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 43 – No 10 – October 2024Training in the nation’s capital gives us front row seats to national health care policy making and discourse while we, at the same time, see individual patients who are impacted directly by these critical government decisions. Participating in the demonstration on April 24th allowed us to join local and national organizations, a refreshing break from long hours in the hospital, to declare that abortion is healthcare and reproductive rights are human rights. This aligns with the American College of Emergency Physicians policy that supports the development of clinical practices that protect medical care services for pregnancy-related concerns, including abortions, and that protect emergency physicians in cases of conflict between state and federal laws, such as EMTALA. They also encourage hospitals and residency programs to provide education, training, and resources on abortions.
It is even more urgent now to support the lawyers, physicians, and nonprofit leaders who work tirelessly to enable access to care at both the micro and macro levels. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated in her dissent, this decision is “not a victory for pregnant patients; it is a delay. Pregnant people experiencing medical complications remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Directly or indirectly, all of us providers in the country are being affected. As physicians, even as resident physicians in training, our white coats and degrees hold weight, and our responsibility should not be limited to the walls of an emergency department. This case and the rally we participated in remind us that our patients are depending on us to advocate on their behalf, and we cannot afford to be silent on this issue; we cannot wait until our patients are near death before our nation’s lawmakers take action.
Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page
No Responses to “Advocating for Patients”