Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 46

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

23 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

(BARRETT,  J.,  concurring).    But  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the 
Government could reach that conclusion.  At oral argument,
the  Solicitor  General  conceded  that  the  term  “health”  in 
EMTALA  includes  mental  health,  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  77–78,
and if that is so, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in 
which  the  Government’s  interpretation  of  EMTALA  could
require an abortion.

jeopardize 

Suppose, for example, that a woman in the 10th week of 
gestation  experiences  serious  depression  due  to  her  preg-
nancy.  If  she  asks  emergency  medical  professionals  for 
treatment, her medical care providers might conclude that
her continued pregnancy could “reasonably be expected” to 
seriously 
the  woman’s  mental  health. 
§1395dd(e)(1)(A).  Under  the  Government’s  reading  of 
EMTALA, the woman would then have the right to “make 
an  informed  decision”  about  the  treatment  she  received. 
Brief for United States 41.  If the woman preferred to abort
rather  than  manage  her  depression  alongside  her  preg-
nancy, it is not apparent why the Government’s reading of
EMTALA would not require that abortion. 

We have seen where a rule permitting abortions to pro-
tect the psychological health of pregnant women may lead.
In Roe, the Court held that a woman had the right to obtain
a post-viability abortion that was deemed “necessary, in ap-
propriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life
or health of the mother.”  Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 165 
(1973).  In the companion case Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 
(1973),  the Court  wrote  that  a  doctor,  in  judging  whether 
an  abortion  was  needed  to  preserve  a  pregnant  woman’s
health,  could  consider  “all  factors—physical,  emotional,
psychological,  familial,  and  the  woman’s  age—relevant  to 
the  well-being  of  the  patient.”    Id.,  at  192.  That  decision 
was  viewed  by  many  as  essentially  preventing  States 
from  restricting  post-viability  abortions.25    As  Harvard  

—————— 

25 See,  e.g.,  J.  Ely,  The  Wages  of  Crying  Wolf:  A  Comment  on Roe  v.