By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to permit – for now – abortions to be performed in Idaho when pregnant women are facing medical emergencies, as the justices dispensed with the contentious issue without actually deciding the case on its merits.
The 6-3 ruling effectively reinstated a lower court’s decision that Idaho’s Republican-backed near-total abortion ban must yield to a 1986 U.S. law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when the two statutes conflict.
A version of the ruling was inadvertently posted to the court’s website on Wednesday in the second instance in the past two years of the disclosure of a major abortion decision before its formal issuance.
President Joe Biden’s administration had sued Idaho, arguing that EMTALA takes precedence over state law. EMTALA ensures that patients can receive emergency care at hospitals that receive funding under the federal Medicare program. Idaho is among six states with abortion bans that offer no exceptions to protect the health of pregnant women.
The court’s decision – an unsigned, one-line order – lifted a block, or stay, that the justices had placed on the lower court’s ruling in January. But the Supreme Court did not resolve the underlying legal dispute, opting instead to dismiss the case as “improvidently granted.”
Biden, seeking re-election this year, has sought to make abortion rights a centerpiece of his campaign, as Democrats try to use the issue to political advantage against Republicans in races across the country. Donald Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.
Trump as president appointed three of the six justices who were in the majority in the 2022 abortion ruling, and he has been on the defensive on the abortion issue during this year’s campaign. Trump has said in states with abortion bans he backs exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother, and also that he supports the availability of in-vitro fertilization.
In another case, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision on June 13 rejected a bid by anti-abortion groups and doctors to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, finding that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the litigation targeting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The justices also did not decide the underlying legal issues in that case as well, ruling that the anti-abortion groups and doctors who brought the challenge lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case.
Idaho’s so-called abortion “trigger” law, adopted in 2020, automatically took effect upon Roe’s reversal. The state law banned nearly all abortions unless needed to prevent a mother’s death, threatening doctors who violate it with two to five years in prison and loss of their medical license.
Medical experts have said conditions that could threaten the woman’s life and health – from gestational hypertension to excessive bleeding – could require an abortion to stabilize her or avoid seizures, vital organ damage and failure, or the loss of the uterus.
EMTALA requires hospitals that receive funding under the federal Medicare program to “stabilize” patients with emergency medical conditions. Hospitals that violate EMTALA can face lawsuits by injured patients, civil fines and potentially the loss of Medicare funding.
Following Roe’s demise, Biden’s administration issued federal guidance stating that EMTALA takes precedence over state abortion bans in the relatively rare instances in which the two conflict, and filed the lawsuit challenging Idaho’s ban.
Boise-based U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in 2022 blocked enforcement of Idaho’s law in cases of abortions that are needed to avoid putting the woman’s health in “serious jeopardy” or risking “serious impairment to bodily functions.”
In a May Reuters/Ipsos poll, 82% of registered voters responding, including 88% of Democrats and 79% of Republicans, said they supported requiring states with strict abortion bans to permit an abortion if necessary to protect the health of a pregnant patient facing a medical emergency.
Some 57% of respondents in the poll said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 46% in Reuters/Ipsos surveys conducted a decade ago. Some 31% of respondents in the May poll said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, down from 43% in 2014 polls. About 10% of respondents consistently say they are not sure.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
Comments