Policy Op-Ed: The Supreme Court Term in Review & A Crisis of Health and Democracy

Key Takeaways from Leading Experts

On July 1st, Georgetown Law Center hosted a conference on sexual and reproductive health in light of recent judicial rulings. The event featured multiple panels with journalists, law professors, physicians, and activists. Some speakers discussed technical matters within their expertise, while others shared deeply personal testimonies about medical racism and abortion bans. The prevailing sentiment throughout the day was profound dissatisfaction with the judicial decisions made by the country’s leadership. In response, participants called for grassroots action, collective dialogue, and civic engagement.

The speakers highlighted the significance and nuance of two recent Supreme Court rulings: one concerning mifepristone and the other related to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Those unfamiliar with legal doctrine or who do not follow the news closely might struggle to grasp the broader implications of these cases. I suspect this may be an intentional strategy by the Court to obscure the impact of its rulings by presenting them inconspicuously. The problem is that the American public cannot effectively protest what it does not understand.

On June 13th, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval and expansion of access to mifepristone. This drug blocks progesterone and is taken with misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy. On July 27th, the Court dismissed a case and temporarily allowed abortions to stabilize a person’s health in Idaho, in accordance with EMTALA.

At first glance

These rulings might seem like unexpected victories for reproductive justice, especially from the same Court that overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago. However, what is not immediately apparent is that these decisions are fragile, limited in scope, and invite future challenges. The Court avoided taking a decisive stance on the merits of these cases, instead basing its decisions on technicalities. In future years, other plaintiffs will likely circumvent these legal conditions with more durable methods.

In the EMTALA case

The justices did not unanimously reaffirm that federal law preempts state law in instances when they conflict. The majority opinion did not unequivocally state that imminent death is too extreme a requirement for guaranteeing emergency medical care. The Court missed the opportunity to alleviate some confusion and fear in hospital rooms across the United States.

In the mifepristone case

The justices based the decision on the plaintiff’s lack of legal standing rather than emphasizing the consensus opinion of the medical community at large. Thus, the speakers echoed the opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her partial dissent regarding the EMTALA ruling: “This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price.”

As I listened to legal scholars and journalists discuss the ramifications of these rulings, I grasped an unsettling truth: the Court upheld a devastating status quo while placating much of the population that supports choice. It became increasingly clear how vital it is for experts to ring the alarm about these realities, which legal jargon and simplified headlines too often conceal.

As the event progressed, the discussion shifted from the judiciary to the United States’ Black maternal mortality crisis. The conversation shed its academic tone and embraced a striking vulnerability. My eyes welled with tears as Charles Johnson recounted the story of his wife, Kira, who died shortly after a routine C-section for their second son. She experienced internal hemorrhaging, which providers ignored for hours despite her family’s desperate pleas for assistance. Kira’s death was tragic, preventable, and symptomatic of the ways our health care system chronically dismisses the needs of Black women.

Before the panel

I knew that Black women in this country are roughly three times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes. However, I had never listened in person to someone detail one of the concrete experiences that contributed to this unacceptable statistic. This fact speaks to my privilege as a white person and the privilege of my larger communities.

I had fallen prey to the comforting ambiguity of understanding a social issue solely through the lens of research. It is trite but worth repeating that every single data point in the Black maternal mortality crisis represents a life lost, a family destroyed, and a community in mourning. Storytellers like Charles have the courageous and noble job of bringing people, me included, back to this reality.

Listening to some of the brightest minds in law and advocacy was both a privilege and a dire warning. The speakers emphasized that now is the time for hard work because reproductive freedom hangs in the balance. They did not prescribe one correct way to engage but issued a broad call to use whatever skills and influence each person has. Their recommendations included signing a petition for a ballot measure, speaking openly with family over the dinner table, and voting in local and federal elections. The participants spoke persuasively and powerfully, balancing expert knowledge with personal insight.

The event was a reminder that education and dialogue must remain fact-based and grounded in current political events. At the same time, everyone fighting for reproductive justice must always remember the human impact that ultimately drives the movement. Change and activism will not and cannot succeed without both perspectives.