The Supreme Court’s Quiet Decision in Moyle v. United States: A Moral Earthquake for the Anti-Abortion Movement
Rarely has a Supreme Court case had less legal meaning and greater moral weight than the decision Thursday morning in Moyle v. United States. The case was of such little legal consequence that you might have already forgotten about it, lost in the haze of a shocking presidential debate and a host of far more consequential Supreme Court decisions. But Moyle illuminates a deep conflict within the anti-abortion movement, and the way the pro-life movement resolves that conflict will affect American life and politics for decades to come.
The court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted.” In plain English, it means that it never should have taken the case in the first place. Even though Justices Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito wrote their own opinions, those opinions do not bind the lower courts the way a true Supreme Court majority opinion binds every federal court. But they’re important nonetheless.
Key Takeaways:
- The case raised a significant question about the balance between protecting the life and health of pregnant women and the rights of unborn children. This question is at the heart of the ongoing debate over abortion in America.
- Idaho’s law, which restricted abortions to cases where the mother’s life was in imminent danger, was met with strong opposition from medical providers and the federal government. The law’s potential to force pregnant women to endure serious harm in order to protect their unborn child was deemed unconstitutional.
- The case highlighted the growing divide within the anti-abortion movement between those who embrace the "love them both" philosophy and those who advocate for abortion abolition. This division hinges on the question of whether there are any exceptions to protecting the life of an unborn child, even when the mother’s life or health is at risk.
- The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the case underscores the importance of a clear factual record. The court couldn’t reach a decision due to ambiguity and inconsistency in Idaho’s law and the federal government’s initial stance. The case will likely be revisited with a more defined understanding of the legal issues at hand.
Idaho’s Pro-Life Law and the "Love Them Both" Paradox
At issue in Moyle was a conflict between Idaho’s law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law requiring hospitals participating in Medicare to provide stabilizing treatment for individuals with emergency medical conditions, regardless of their ability to pay.
The problem arises when a pregnant woman suffers an emergency medical condition that necessitates an abortion to prevent serious injury, but the condition isn’t life-threatening. For example, a woman might experience severe heart failure, pre-eclampsia, or placental abruption, conditions that could be fatal if left untreated. Should such a woman be denied necessary medical treatment because the state law forbids abortion except when the mother’s life is in imminent danger?
The case exposes a fundamental tension in the anti-abortion movement. While many advocates support the "love them both" philosophy—protecting the lives of both the mother and the unborn child—Idaho’s law seems to prioritize the unborn child’s life, even at the expense of the mother’s health.
This issue raises deeper questions about the legal and ethical implications of treating pregnant women as second-class citizens It is comparable to allowing a person to use deadly force against another when they believe they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury but forcing a pregnant woman to endure great harm to save her unborn child.
The Case for a More Humane Approach to Abortion Law
The Moyle case underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to abortion law. The "love them both" ethos should be genuinely embraced, meaning that the law should protect both the mother and the child, not one at the expense of the other.
The case also highlights the importance of respecting a woman’s agency and her right to make choices about her own body and health. If a woman chooses to endure great harm to protect her unborn child, that is her choice, but the state should not require her to sacrifice her health or life.
As Justice Kagan noted in her concurring opinion, Idaho’s restrictive law led to the alarming practice of airlifting pregnant women out of the state for necessary medical care. This forced relocation not only placed a significant burden on the women involved but also exposed the flawed logic of the state’s legal framework.
The Future of the Anti-Abortion Movement: A Crossroads
The Moyle case represents a pivotal moment for the anti-abortion movement. The movement has to choose between a “love them both” approach that prioritizes both the mother and the child, or an abortion abolitionist stance that places the unborn child’s life above that of the mother.
If the pro-life movement continues to embrace a zero-tolerance policy towards abortion, it risks alienating a significant portion of the population and jeopardizing its own credibility. The movement cannot ignore the moral imperative of protecting both the life and health of women, and it must strive to create a pro-life culture that respects the dignity and autonomy of all individuals. The case of Moyle v. United States will serve as a reminder of the moral and legal challenges that lie ahead as the debate over abortion continues to unfold. It will determine whether the anti-abortion movement will truly embrace the “love them both” philosophy, or if it will continue down a path that prioritizes one life at the expense of another.
