BLUE
LS
Liz Sepper
@lsepper.bsky.social
Law Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Fan of health law, religious liberty, and reproductive rights
3k followers940 following1.1k posts
LSlsepper.bsky.social

Just this year, the Sup Ct (and the Biden Admin) took the view that the federal law requiring emergency care allowed doctors and hospitals to let pregnant people die. This is radical--and wrong. California's suit raises only state law, so isn't directly affected. But...

AHM and Moyle mark a dramatic shift in so-called conscience protection at the federal level. EMTALA—and patients’ interests in life and health—had long been understood to prevail over providers’ religious objections. The sponsors of various conscience-related laws and budget riders made explicit that religious and moral beliefs would not relieve providers of duties of emergency care. Multiple times, Congress considered but rejected conscience carve-outs to EMTALA. And when the Trump administration issued a rule in 2019 authorizing denial of care where a patient was experiencing ectopic pregnancy, miscarrying, or otherwise in need of emergency care, multiple federal courts vacated the rule as not in accordance with EMTALA.

While the discussion of conscience might be labeled mere dicta, advocates, providers, and enterprising lower courts are likely to read the Court to permit refusal of emergency abortions nationwide. Indeed, anti-abortion activists celebrated what otherwise
1

LSlsepper.bsky.social

Because it apparently needs to be said, a corporate religious identity does not justify inflicting suffering on patients. The primary mission of Catholic hospitals is healthcare, just as the primary mission of Catholic universities is education. Refusal of emergency care is--and should be--illegal

1
LS
Liz Sepper
@lsepper.bsky.social
Law Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Fan of health law, religious liberty, and reproductive rights
3k followers940 following1.1k posts