With the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to hear one reproductive rights case this term, the high court has only one case on its docket regarding bodily autonomy this year.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has sent shock waves as it disregards long standing precedent in a number of cases, including the Chevron deference in July of this year and Roe v. Wade in its Dobbs decision in 2022.
But for the 2024-2025 term, the court decided not to hear a case out of Texas about whether that state’s abortion ban is in conflict with a federal law codifying hospital emergency room requirements. The court’s refusal leaves that question in limbo, said Jazmyn Taitingfong, reproductive rights and gender equity attorney for American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico.
The case out of Texas is similar to the Idaho case the high court considered last year but sent back to the lower courts in June. After the Dobbs decision, Texas put into place a near total abortion ban in 2022. Texas sued the U.S. Department of Justice, claiming the guidance from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department which protects individuals who seek emergency room care that a hospital must stabilize that patient, could not be enforced as it conflicted with the new state law.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Texas, ruling that providers in Texas are not required to follow the federal guidance, known as EMTALA. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to consider the case but the Supreme Court, last week, refused.
Taitingfong told NM Political Report that this leaves it “very unclear to doctors [in Texas] about when those [abortion] exceptions apply and how they apply, or if they are at risk of being criminalized in the state.”
Texas’ ban on abortion allows for exceptions in the event a pregnant person’s health is at risk. The Texas Tribune has reported that one in five OB-GYN doctors in Texas has considered leaving the state and 13 percent are planning to retire early due to the restrictions.
Taitingfong said the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the Texas suit means the Texas case is closed. But since the Idaho case is still pending in the lower courts, that case could wind up back before the Supreme Court again, perhaps even this term.
A group of women in Texas sued the state last year because, they said, they experienced pregnancy complications and were forced to travel out of state for a necessary abortion while also grieving the pregnancy loss. But the group lost their suit in a lower court and the Texas Supreme Court, where the women appealed, denied it a few months ago.
With the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to hear the Texas case on the EMTALA law on appeal, that means that the high court has one case, so far, to consider during this 2024-2025 term that is about bodily autonomy. That case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, is about whether the state of Tennessee has the right to ban gender-affirming care for minors in that state. The plaintiffs argue that the state’s ban violates the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, Taitingfong said.
According to the Human Rights Watch, 26 states have passed a ban on gender-affirming care. Taitingfong said that gender-affirming care saves lives because studies show that when the rights of transgender individuals are under attack, suicide rates rise.
Taitingfong said this is, in addition to abortion care, another form of healthcare that “people are trying to attack.”
She said that, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Tennessee case, the laws of New Mexico would not change. New Mexico prohibits discrimination of gender-affirming care by public bodies. That state law, along with others that increase protections for the LGBTQ community, was enacted in 2023.
But, Taitingfong said, if the high court rules in favor of Tennessee, it could embolden more states to enact laws banning gender-affirming care for minors.
“This is hurting children,” she said.