SCOTUS Chat: Recorded live with Jess Braverman, Gender Justice Legal Director and Erin Maye Quade, Gender Justice Special Projects Advisor

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Idaho v. United States and Moyle et al., or the “EMTALA” (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) case, which centers on whether state abortion bans supersede the federal EMTALA law mandating that hospital emergency departments receiving federal funding must stabilize a patient whose life or health is at risk.

In its long-awaited decision, the Court sent the case back to the lower courts, where. It also reinstated a lower court’s ruling permitting doctors to provide emergency abortion care even where such care conflicts with Idaho’s abortion ban—but not before several patients had to be airlifted out of Idaho to receive emergency health care because of the Court's initial decision.

By punting on what should be a straightforward ruling, the Supreme Court effectively condones the denial of emergency abortion care.

In this SCOTUS Chat, Gender Justice Special Projects Advisor Erin Maye Quade and Legal Director Jess Braverman share their analysis of the Supreme Court ruling.

References from the podcast and additional resources:

Supreme Court opinion

Gender Justice statement on the EMTALA opinion

Visit the "Gender Justice" Website ⁠here⁠ and "Unrestrict Minnesota" ⁠here⁠.

The GJB is produced by Michael at ⁠www.501MediaGroup.com⁠ & Audra Grigus.

Host: Noah Parrish, Gender Justice Communications Director

Guests: Ash Tifa, Rainbow Health Legal Services Program Coordinator, and Annie Van Avery, Family Tree Clinic Executive Director

“No health plan that covers physical or mental health services may be offered, sold, issued, or renewed in this state that excludes coverage for medically necessary gender-affirming care.”

This is the simple language underlying one of the major accomplishments from Minnesota’s 2024 legislative session: the Gender-Affirming Care Act, Representative Leigh Finke’s 2024 bill codifying Minnesota’s existing mandates for insurance coverage of gender-affirming care. The policy was included in the omnibus Commerce policy bill that passed this session.

Our guests for this episode bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the discussion, describing the urgent need for codification, the process of drafting and passing this law, and the impact that the policy will have on the many people for whom gender-affirming care is an essential aspect of their healthcare.

References from the podcast and additional resources:

Rainbow Health

Family Tree Clinic

Quarterly Name and Gender Marker Change Clinic - Rainbow Health in partnership with Family Tree Clinic

WPATH: The World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Minnesota Departments of Human Rights, Human Services, Health, and Commerce: Joint Administrative Bulletin 2023-1 (pdf)
'Trans refuge' law draws some to Minnesota, and providers are struggling to meet the demand

###

Visit the "Gender Justice" Website ⁠here⁠ and "Unrestrict Minnesota" ⁠here⁠.

The GJB is produced by Michael at ⁠www.501MediaGroup.com⁠ & Audra Grigus.

Host: Noah Parrish, Gender Justice Communications Director

Guest: Jess Braverman, Gender Justice Legal Director

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, its first abortion case since the Dobbs ruling reversing Roe v. Wade.

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court maintained the current FDA regulations on mifepristone, one of the two pills used in medication abortion.

This medication, alongside misoprostol, constitutes the primary method for over 60% of U.S. abortions and plays a vital role in reproductive healthcare beyond abortion, including miscarriage management and treating reproductive health conditions.

As reliance on medication abortion surges nationwide, with over three in five abortion patients opting for this method, the Supreme Court’s decision maintains access to a fundamental aspect of reproductive healthcare.

However, while this ruling maintains the status quo for mifepristone access, it contains troubling language suggesting that doctors with religious objections to any medical treatment could potentially opt out, even if it could result in death or severe harm to a patient. Even where there are no alternative providers to ensure care (in largely rural areas and healthcare deserts, for example)

In the latest SCOTUS Chat, Gender Justice Communications Director Noah Parrish sits down with Legal Director Jess Braverman to discuss the ruling and its implications.

References from the podcast and additional resources:

Supreme Court decision

Gender Justice statement on the decision

UnRestrict Minnesota Guide to Getting an Abortion

Join the movement for an inclusive Minnesota Equal Rights Amendment

SCOTUS Chat: Can States Ban Emergency Abortion Care? Episode of the Gender Justice Brief discussing EMTALA

Visit the "Gender Justice" Website ⁠here⁠ and "Unrestrict Minnesota" ⁠here⁠.

The GJB is produced by Michael at ⁠www.501MediaGroup.com⁠ & Audra Grigus.