Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a limited ruling

The Supreme Court ruled state abortion bans enacted after the overturning of Roe v. Wade violates federal health care law that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide emergency care regardless of patients’ ability to pay.

The justices decision allows hospitals in Idaho to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health, for now.

In a 6-3 vote, the court found that court should not have gotten involved in the case over Idaho's strict abortion ban so quickly. It reinstates a lower court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect a pregnant patient’s health. However, the outcome leaves the issues at the heart of the case unresolved.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes, "Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay."

The ruling came after a day an opinion was briefly posted on the court's website accidentally and quickly taken down, but not before it was obtained by Bloomberg.

The Justice Department brought the case against Idaho over its abortion law, which only allows a woman to get an abortion when her life — not her health — is at risk. The state law has raised questions about when a doctor is able to provide the stabilizing treatment that federal law requires.

The federal law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires doctors to stabilize or treat any patient who shows up at an emergency room.

The case from Idaho, one of 14 states that now ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy with very limited exceptions, marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered the implications of a state ban since overturning the nationwide right to abortion.

The high court had already allowed the state ban to go into effect, even in medical emergencies. The Biden administration argued that federal law overrides the state in rare emergency cases where a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk.

The state argued that its strict abortion ban does allow abortions to save a woman’s life, and doesn’t need to expand exceptions for health risks.

But across the country, complaints that pregnant women have been turned away from emergency rooms care have spiked since Roe was overturned.

During oral arguments earlier this year, the court's liberal justices detailed cases of pregnant women hemorrhaging or having to undergo hysterectomies after abortion care was denied or delayed in states with bans.

“Within these rare cases, there’s a significant number where the woman’s life is not in peril, but she’s going to lose her reproductive organs. She’s going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place,” said Justice Elena Kagan.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, said she was “kind of shocked” that an attorney for Idaho appeared to hedge when asked whether the state would allow abortions in cases like those. Attorney Joshua N. Turner responded that doctors can use their “good faith” medical judgment under Idaho’s life-saving exception, but Barrett continued to press: “What if the prosecutor thinks differently?”

Turner acknowledged that a doctor could face a criminal case in that situation. Performing an abortion outside of limited exceptions in Idaho is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide terminations within the bounds of state law.

Abortion opponents say doctors have mishandled maternal emergency cases, and argue the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.