Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

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

7 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

child.”9  And  some  references  expressly  mention  both  the 
“individual” and “the unborn child.”10  No use of the term 
“individual” supports the Government’s interpretation. 

Second, based on a provision stating that an  individual
may not be treated without consent, §1395dd(b)(2), the Gov-
ernment infers that “it is for the pregnant woman, not state 
law, to decide how to proceed” when her health is at risk. 
Brief  for  United  States  43.  The  Government’s  logic  is 
faulty.  The right to withhold consent does not necessarily 
carry with it the right to demand whatever cannot be done 
without consent.  X may withhold consent to a contract with 
Y, but that does not mean that X may demand to enter into 
such a contract.  A person may not be forced to assume the 
duties of the Presidency without consent, but it does not fol-
low that this person may demand to be sworn in as Presi-
dent. 

Or, to provide an example that is more closely related to
the matter at hand, the right to refuse medical treatment 
without consent does not entail the right to demand treat-
ment that is prohibited by law.  Cancer patients have the
right to refuse treatment that their doctors recommend, but
they do not have a right to obtain whatever treatment they
want, such as the administration of a drug that cannot le-
gally be used in this country.  Cf. 21 U. S. C. §360bbb–0a 
(granting  terminal  patients  the  right  to  try  experimental
drugs).  Likewise here, a woman’s right to withhold consent 
to treatment related to her pregnancy does not mean that
she can demand an abortion. 

For  these  reasons,  the  text  of  EMTALA  conclusively 
shows  that  it  does  not  require  hospitals  to  perform  abor-
tions. 

—————— 

9 §1395dd(e)(1)(A)(i). 
10 §§1395dd(c)(1)(A)(ii) and (2)(A), (e)(1)(A)(i).