Supreme Court's Idaho decision deepens abortion uncertainty
![Supreme Court's Idaho decision deepens abortion uncertainty](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/05/GettyImages-2149422333-e1716397631325.jpg?w=900)
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Idaho’s challenge to a federal emergency care law is offering temporary relief to physicians and patients in the state, but it failed to close the door on whether federal law allows physicians to perform abortions in medical emergencies.
The justices on Thursday ruled 6-3 to dismiss the case as “improvidently granted,” essentially meaning they shouldn’t have taken it up to begin with. They sent it back to the appeals court and lifted an earlier decision that allowed Idaho’s law to stand unchallenged.
This means doctors in Idaho will be able to perform emergency abortions despite state-level restrictions — at least while the case is making its way through the courts. Litigation will continue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
But doctors and abortion rights advocates said the ruling is a short-term fix at best, and with no long-term clarity, patients with pregnancy complications who live in states that ban abortion remain in limbo.
“The court should have provided the needed clarification to end the chaos and confusion about what EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] required once and for all, and the failure to do that could well result in more people being denied care,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told reporters.
The case centered on that act, a nearly 40 year-old law that requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.
The Biden administration had invoked EMTALA in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, saying state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by the federal statute.
But EMTALA doesn’t specifically mention abortion and doesn’t outline which procedures should be provided. Idaho argued state law supersedes the federal requirement.
The state permits an abortion when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman,” but not if the patient’s health or reproductive future is at risk from a catastrophic health consequence, such as the loss of her uterus.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador told reporters Thursday he was confident that the appeals court would rule in his favor.
“We feel pretty strongly that we’re going to win this case in the end,” Labrador said. “We look forward to the Ninth Circuit actually reading the tea leaves from the Supreme Court and understanding that the Biden administration’s overreach needs to end.”
Yet because the justices did not resolve the underlying questions raised by the case, and because states have been reluctant to provide substantial guidance to doctors about what constitutes a medical emergency, abortion care remains a legal gray area in dozens of states.
“What we had really hoped for is the Supreme Court to come down very firmly that doctors should be able to provide care for patients, including in emergency situations where abortion care can often be needed to stabilize patients,” Nisha Verma, an OB/GYN in Georgia, said during a press conference.
Georgia’s "heartbeat” law bans abortions after about six weeks and includes exceptions for medical emergencies and “medically futile” pregnancies. But what that means in practice varies across the state, and there is no standard definition or guidance.
“I think that working here in Georgia, we are constantly in a state of confusion trying to navigate incredibly confusing laws with exceptions that just don’t make sense on the ground, that don’t take into consideration all of the complexity that we deal with every day,” Verma added.
The Supreme Court may not end up waiting too much longer. An appeal from the federal government in a similar case to Idaho’s is already pending after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit earlier this year ruled against the Biden administration regarding EMTALA in Texas.
The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court but asked the justices to hold the petition until the court resolved the Idaho case. The court will likely make a decision about whether to hear arguments in the fall, allowing it to rule after the November election.
The Supreme Court could also take up the Idaho case again, after the appeals court makes a decision.
Labrador said he’s been having conversations with hospitals and doctors to try to clear up any confusion about how Idaho’s abortion ban applies.
“They have been thinking ... that they're going to be prosecuted all the time, when that's just not the case in any way,” he said.
But some doctors in the state said they still feel vulnerable.
“Attorney General Labrador chooses not to listen to the great majority of physicians who are deeply concerned, fearful. Fearing for the complications that our patients are suffering every day for care regarding abortion and across the reproductive health spectrum,” Caitlin Gustafson, an Idaho OB/GYN, told reporters.
Jessica Evans-Wall, an Idaho emergency medicine physician, said she anticipates her hospital’s legal team may still need to get involved if there’s an instance with a pregnant patient where she or her physician partners are unsure.
"If I was to run into a case where I was concerned about a pregnant patient's health as opposed to her life, I would still be concerned that I was in gray area,” Evans-Wall said. “I think that in especially the emergency setting, we have to make decisions based on minimal information. I think that most of us physicians are still feeling a little bit unprotected.”
Date: | |
Tag: | Abortion |
Filter
-
CBS News - Top stories
Unpacking the Supreme Court's Idaho abortion decision
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that emergency abortions can be performed in Idaho after the opinion was unintentionally released Wednesday. The case focused on the split between Idaho's near-total abortion ban and a federal law that requires ...Abortion -
The New York Times - Top stories
Supreme Court Allows, for Now, Emergency Abortions in Idaho
A majority of the justices voted to dismiss the case, reinstating a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total abortion ban. The ruling mirrored a version inadvertently posted a day earlier.Abortion -
CBS News - Top stories
Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho
One day after a draft opinion became public, the Supreme Court made it official, ruling that emergency abortions when a woman's health is at risk could resume in Idaho, at least for the time being. Jan Crawford reports.Abortion -
NBC News - Politics
Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now
The Supreme Court has cleared the way, for now, for women in Idaho to receive emergency abortions when their health is in jeopardy, but the decision stills leaves many questions about the future of abortion laws. NBC’s Laura Jarrett reports for ...Abortion -
CBS News - Politics
Supreme Court says emergency abortions can be performed in Idaho
The dispute pitted Idaho's near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires Medicare-funded hospitals to offer abortions when needed to stabilize a patient's emergency medical condition.Abortion -
ABC News - Health
The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a limited ruling
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions for now in a procedural ruling that leaves key questions unansweredAbortion -
The Hill - Politics
Why Idaho's position in the Supreme Court emergency abortions case is concerning
No one having a medical emergency should be denied care due to the state they live in. Congress made this principle clear 40 years ago, and it may need to do so again.Abortion -
ABC News - Health
The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a reversal foreshadowed by a prematurely posted opinion
The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a reversal foreshadowed by a prematurely posted opinion -
The Hill - Politics
Supreme Court social media decisions
Welcome to The Hill's Technology newsletter {beacon} Technology Technology The Big Story Social media cases on deck for Supreme Court ruling Two cases involving the rights of social media companies based on laws in Florida and Texas have yet to ...
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
Can Biden recover from the debate? Don’t bet on it.
The more one analyzes the road ahead, the more obvious it is that a continued Biden candidacy is a kamikaze mission sure to wreck the Democratic Party.Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Trump says Supreme Court delivered 'high level spanking' to Jack Smith
Former President Trump said early Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision delivered a “high level SPANKING!” to special counsel Jack Smith, whose independent probe of the former president led to two criminal indictments ...Donald Trump -
The Hill - Politics
Hungarian prime minister arrives in Kyiv for Zelensky meeting
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Tuesday arrived in Kyiv, where he is set to meet with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky amid tensions between the two European leaders over Russia's war in Ukraine. Orban, a key ally of Russian leader ...Ukraine -
The Hill - Politics
Desperately seeking Biden's replacement and finding … not much
Democrats face a tough decision on who would replace President Biden if he steps down. Kamala Harris, Michelle Obama, and other options are considered.Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Ukraine is taking the fight to Russia in Africa, Syria
Ukraine's military intelligence has been conducting operations in Africa and the Middle East to reduce Russian military potential, and Maj. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov has been leading the charge to fight Russia anywhere it can be found.Ukraine