Advertisement

Supported by

David French

By David French

Opinion Columnist

Rarely has a Supreme Court case had less legal meaning and greater moral weight than the decision Thursday morning in Moyle v. United States.

The case was of such little legal consequence that you might have already forgotten about it; you’ve lost it in the haze of a shocking presidential debate and a host of far more consequential Supreme Court decisions. But Moyle illuminates a deep conflict within the anti-abortion movement, and the way the pro-life movement resolves that conflict will affect American life and politics for decades to come.

The court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted.” In plain English, it means that it never should have taken the case in the first place. Even though Justices Elena Kagan,
Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito wrote their own opinions, those opinions do not bind the lower courts the way a true Supreme Court majority opinion binds every federal court.

But they’re important nonetheless.

The question at issue in Moyle was simple: “Whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) pre-empts a provision of Idaho law that prohibits abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother.” The act is a Reagan-era law that requires hospitals that participate in Medicare to provide stabilizing treatment for people with emergency medical conditions, regardless of their ability to pay.

The conflict with Idaho’s law is obvious. What if a pregnant woman suffers from an emergency medical condition that requires an abortion to stave off serious injury but the condition isn’t life-threatening? After all, people go to emergency rooms for serious but non-life-threatening conditions all the time. If a pregnant woman goes to an emergency room and she faces serious physical peril — but not an imminent mortal threat — should she be treated fundamentally differently because she is carrying a child?

My own answer is yes and no. Yes, of course a doctor should consider the safety of the unborn child when considering a course of treatment. Many pregnant women facing medical emergencies are desperate to protect their child. But the answer becomes no the instant that the choice becomes binary — where the best course of treatment to protect the mother from serious physical harm requires an abortion. In that awful circumstance, if a woman chooses to endure great harm to protect her child, then that is her choice. But the state must not require it.

The cruelty of requiring a sacrifice like that is evident when you take a larger look at American law. In Tennessee, for example, a person is entitled to use deadly force against another when “the........

© The New York Times