•  
  •  
 
University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy

Abstract

This Note addresses whether EMTALA preempts state abortion bans in the context of a medical emergency. Part I provides background information on the Dobbs decision and how states responded, discusses the Department of Health and Human Services’ interpretation of EMTALA’s preemptive effect, and introduces the competing district court cases. Notably, the analysis of these district court cases focuses on the relevant state abortion bans as they existed at the time of each decision. Part II discusses EMTALA, specifically Congress’ intent in enacting the statute and the obligations it imposes on hospitals and physicians. Part III then provides an overview of preemption and an analysis of EMTALA’s preemption provision. Part IV analyzes why the district court’s decision in Texas is “egregiously wrong,” arguing that EMTALA preempts state abortion bans to the extent they conflict. Part V provides an overview of the legal challenges that followed these district court decisions and then highlights the continued confusion, chaos, and uncertainty that persists for emergency abortion care. Lastly, Part VI discusses the implications of these competing decisions on the legal landscape, healthcare providers, and women’s health.

Erratum

Editor’s Note: This note was primarily drafted during the 2022-2023 academic year and discusses two district court decisions addressing the interplay between state abortion restrictions and EMTALA after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Since these two district court decisions were issued in August of 2022, there have been several appeals. Additionally, in early 2025, the current administration dropped the lawsuit against Idaho that led to one of these district court opinions. While I have edited the original draft to reflect and briefly discuss the long and complex subsequent history of these two cases, the main purpose of this Note was to compare these similar yet competing district court decisions and examine the public policy implications. Although it is important to recognize the subsequent history of these two district court decisions, the analysis provided in this Note remains relevant, in particular, the discussion of the consequences that these legal challenges and restrictive state abortion bans have on the practice of emergency medicine and women’s health.

Download

Share

COinS