91������

Decisions related to reproductive health care, gun violence prevention and health care misinformation

Aug. 9, 2024 (91������) -- The U.S. Supreme Court had a busy June, and many of its recent decisions will affect key health advocacy initiatives championed by the American College of Physicians.

Some of the decisions touched on preserving access to reproductive health care.

The Supreme Court voted to uphold the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, which is used in medication abortion. In a 9-0 vote, the Court rejected a bid to block access to this medication. 91������ submitted an amicus brief urging the court to do just that. “The drug is still approved, and this is a significant win,” said Shari Erickson, 91������ chief advocacy officer and senior vice president of governmental affairs and public policy.

In a related matter, the Supreme Court opted out of deciding whether Idaho's abortion ban conflicted with a federal law that sets standards for hospital-based emergency room care. This law requires emergency rooms in hospitals that receive Medicare payments to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to patients who arrive with an emergency medical condition.

91������ and other physician organizations filed an amicus brief in this case because enforcing the ban without regard for the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act would force health care professionals to disregard their medical expertise when caring for a patient in need.

“The court dismissed the appeal, which means that a lower court ruling that allows doctors in Idaho to perform abortions in emergency situations remains in effect … for now,” Erickson said. “The case is now sent back to an appeals court to resume the process, but it could ultimately return to the Supreme Court at a later date. We are keeping our eyes on this.”

While the recent reproductive health decisions were largely in line with 91������ policy, a Supreme Court decision on bump stocks was a setback. The Supreme Court struck down a rule that banned bump stocks, which the Trump administration issued after a 2017 mass shooting at a concert in Las Vegas. A bump stock is an attachment that allows a semiautomatic rifle to somewhat mimic a fully automatic weapon.

By a vote of 6-3, the justices rejected the federal government's argument that rifles equipped with bump stocks are machine guns. The court stated that the federal government exceeded its authority when it defined them as such. “Some states do have laws in place that ban bump stocks, but the federal government can't classify them as machine guns,” Erickson said. “We will continue to watch this and think outside of the box on ways to alleviate gun violence and death across the country.”

While the bump stock ruling was a disappointment, the Supreme Court also voted 8-1 that people with restraining orders against them for domestic violence cannot own guns. This decision essentially closes “the boyfriend loophole,” which allowed physically abusive ex-romantic partners and stalkers with previous convictions or restraining orders to access guns, and is a win, according to Erickson.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation on vaccine safety, masking and other important public health prevention measures spread across social media almost as fast as the virus spread through at-risk populations.

91������ and other groups submitted an amicus brief stating that the federal government should partner with social media and other outlets to elevate evidence-based, credible sources and correct misinformation. The Supreme Court agreed and voted to allow the White House to request the removal of misinformation on social media platforms.

Another decision likely to have far-reaching implications in the months and years to come is known as the “Chevron decision.” According to Erickson, this decision reverses a 40-year-old ruling stating that when Congress has not directly addressed a question at the center of a dispute, the Supreme Court must uphold an agency's interpretation of the statute as long as it is reasonable.

This is no longer the case. Now, decisions made by agencies may no longer be valid.

This reversal may affect the recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ban on noncompete clauses, as it would suggest that the FTC was not authorized to make this decision, Erickson noted. Other at-risk laws include those enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Back to the August 9, 2024 issue of 91������ Advocate