Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 20

16 

FDA v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE 

Opinion of the Court 

provided, here is how it violated my conscience, and here is 
why the conscience protections were unavailable to me.”  Cf. 
App.  153–154  (Dr.  Francis  saw  a  patient  suffering
complications from an abortion drug obtained from India;
no allegation that Dr. Francis helped perform an abortion); 
id.,  at  154 (Dr.  Francis  witnessed  another  doctor  perform
an  abortion;  no  allegation  that  the  other  doctor  raised 
conscience objections or tried not to participate); id., at 163– 
164 
suffering
complications  from  abortion  drugs;  no  allegation  that  the 
doctors  treating  the  patients  had  or  raised  conscience
objections to the treatment they provided); id., at 173–174 
(doctor  treated  a  patient  suffering  from  mifepristone
complications;  no  description  of  what  that  treatment 
involved  and  no  statement  that  the  doctor  raised  a 
conscience objection to providing that treatment). 

(doctor’s  hospital 

treated  women 

federal 

In  response  to  all  of  that,  the  doctors  still  express  fear 
that  another 
law,  the  Emergency  Medical 
Treatment  and  Labor  Act  or  EMTALA,  might  be 
interpreted to override those federal conscience laws and to
require individual emergency room doctors to participate in 
emergency  abortions  in  some  circumstances.    See  42 
U. S. C. §1395dd.  But the Government has disclaimed that 
reading of EMTALA.  And we agree with the Government’s
view of EMTALA on that point.  EMTALA does not require
doctors  to  perform  abortions  or  provide  abortion-related 
medical treatment over their conscience objections because 
EMTALA does not impose obligations on individual doctors. 
See  Brief  for  United  States  23,  n. 3.    As  the  Solicitor 
General succinctly and correctly stated, EMTALA does not 
“override an individual doctor’s conscience objections.”  Tr. 
of Oral Arg. 18; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. in Moyle v. United 
States, O. T. 2023, No. 23–726 etc., pp. 88–91 (Moyle Tr.).
We  agree  with  the  Solicitor  General’s  representation  that
federal conscience protections provide “broad coverage” and
will  “shield  a  doctor  who  doesn’t  want  to  provide  care  in