The move follows the Supreme Court’s dismissal of a case concerning federal emergency care requirements.
House Democrats have introduced a resolution that reaffirms the right to “emergency health care, including abortion care,” in response to a Supreme Court case that drew attention to the issue in June.
The “Reaffirming Emergency Abortion Care for All” resolution aims to emphasize that federal law “guarantees” abortions to women in medical emergencies, regardless of where they live, Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio) said Thursday in announcing the measure.
The measure was introduced after the U.S. Supreme Court in June dismissed the appeal of a ruling that temporarily allowed emergency abortions in Idaho, as a lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion law plays out.
The case, which is being hashed out in the lower courts, centers on whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Idaho to allow abortions in emergency situations where there is no threat to the mother’s life—the only exception state law provides.
EMTALA requires hospitals to examine all emergency room patients and provide stabilizing treatment to those determined to have an emergency medical condition.
The federal government had sued the state of Idaho over its abortion law, contending that EMTALA preempts the Idaho law in cases when an abortion is “needed to prevent serious health harms,” according to the Supreme Court decision.
“Women should be able to access their reproductive health care when they need it, whenever they need it—but especially if they are in a life-or-death situation,” Sykes told reporters at a press conference outside the Capitol.
Sykes was joined at the press conference by a group of abortion advocates and Democrat congresswomen, including Reps. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.).
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed state governments to make their own abortion laws, nearly two dozen states have moved to restrict the procedure.
In his dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “The text of EMTALA shows clearly that it does not require hospitals to perform abortions in violation of Idaho law. To the contrary, EMTALA obligates Medicare-funded hospitals to treat, not abort, the ‘unborn child.’”
Carolyn McDonnell, litigation counsel for Americans United for Life, told The Epoch Times, “EMTALA doesn’t mention abortion once. Rather, the statute prevents patient dumping of women in active labor and explicitly protects the woman’s ‘unborn child’ at four separate points.
“These provisions are consistent with modern medicine, which considers the unborn child as a separate patient,” McDonnell said.
Nearly all states—41—allow abortion in situations involving a threat to the mother’s life, and 23 have exceptions for threats to the mother’s physical health, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
In some states, new laws have sparked confusion over what level and kind of care doctors can legally provide to pregnant women.
The new measure has the backing of 114 cosponsors, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and several other pro-abortion groups. It is unlikely to come up for a vote in the Republican-controlled House.