Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 31

8 

MOYLE v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

B 
For those who find it appropriate to look beyond the stat-
utory text, the context in which EMTALA was enacted re-
inforces  what  the  text  makes  clear.    Congress  designed 
EMTALA to solve a particular problem—preventing private
hospitals from turning away patients who are unable to pay 
for  medical  care.  H. R.  Rep.  No.  99–241(I),  pt.  1,  p.  27
(1985); K. Treiger, Preventing Patient Dumping: Sharpen-
ing  the  COBRA’s  Fangs,  61  N. Y.  U.  L.  Rev.  1186,  1188 
(1986).  And none of many briefs submitted in this suit has 
found  any  suggestion  in  the  proceedings  leading  up  to 
EMTALA’s passage that the Act might also use the carrot
of federal funds to entice hospitals to perform abortions.  To 
the  contrary,  EMTALA  garnered  broad  support  in  both
Houses of Congress, including the support of Members such
as Representative Henry Hyde who adamantly opposed the 
use of federal funds to abet abortion.11 

It is also telling that the Congress that initially enacted 
EMTALA in 1986 and the one that amended it in 1989 also 
passed appropriations riders under what is now known as
the Hyde Amendment (named after Representative Hyde) 
to prevent federal funds from facilitating abortions, except 
in limited circumstances.  See Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 
297, 302 (1980).  Between 1981 and 1993—the very period 
when  EMTALA  was  enacted  and  amended—the  Hyde
Amendment  contained  only  one  exception:  for  abortions 
necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.  Congres-
sional  Research  Service,  E.  Liu  &  W.  Shen,  The  Hyde
Amendment: An Overview 1 (2022); see §204, 99 Stat. 1119 
(1986 Hyde Amendment).  The Hyde Amendment thus pro-
hibited  federal  funds  from  paying  for  the  health-related 

—————— 

11 See House Vote #499 in 1986 (99th Cong.), GovTrack.US (Mar. 20,
1986),  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h499;  Senate 
Vote  #379  in  1985  (99th  Cong.),  GovTrack.US  (Dec.  19,  1985), 
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1985/s379.