%20(1).webp)
Supreme Court Greenlights Emergency Abortions in Idaho
- Michael Foust Crosswalk Headlines Contributor
- Updated Jun 27, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed emergency abortions to go forward in a complicated Idaho case that saw the court’s conservative justices disagree and that could return to the high court again in the near future. At issue is an Idaho law that prohibits most abortions but allows such procedures if they “prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” The Biden administration sued the state, arguing that a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Medicare-funded hospitals to provide essential care to patients experiencing medical emergencies -- and, by extension, provide certain abortions that are prohibited under Idaho law.
A district court sided with the Biden administration and gave the go-ahead for emergency abortions by issuing a preliminary injunction, but the U.S. Supreme Court in January paused the injunction and agreed to hear the case.
On Thursday, the high court in a one-page decision, dismissed the case in a 6-3 ruling and allowed the district court’s injunction to go back into effect. The ruling means that the case will go forward in lower courts and, potentially, return to the Supreme Court.
The court’s three liberal justices -- not surprisingly -- were in unison Thursday in supporting the Biden administration’s position. But the court’s three conservative justices disagreed on the decision’s impact.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion noting that the facts have changed since the courts got involved. For example, she wrote that the Idaho legislature amended the definition of “abortion” to exclude the “removal of a dead unborn child” and the “removal of an ectopic or molar pregnancy.” The Biden administration, she wrote, “disavowed the notion that an abortion is ever required as stabilizing treatment for mental health conditions” -- which was a fear of pro-lifers in the suit. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s concurring opinion.
“The dramatic narrowing of the dispute -- especially the Government’s position on abortions to address mental health and conscience exemptions for healthcare providers -- has undercut the conclusion that Idaho would suffer irreparable harm under the preliminary injunction,” Barrett wrote. “Contrary to Idaho’s concerns at the stay stage, the Government’s interpretation of EMTALA does not purport to transform emergency rooms into ‘federal abortion enclaves governed not by state law, but by physician judgment, as enforced by the United States’s mandate to perform abortions on demand.’ Nor does it purport to deprive doctors and hospitals of conscience protections.
“Thus, even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho’s ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact,” Barrett wrote.
The court’s decision will “permit proceedings to run their course in the courts below,” she wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The language of EMTALA requires the hospital to “stabilize both ‘the woman’ and ‘her unborn child,’” he wrote. Alito wrote that the Biden administration’s position is “unsound.”
“Far from requiring hospitals to perform abortions, EMTALA’s text unambiguously demands that Medicare-funded hospitals protect the health of both a pregnant woman and her ‘unborn child,’” Alito wrote.
Photo Credit: Getty Images/Andrew Harnik/Staff
Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, The Christian Post, the Leaf-Chronicle, the Toronto Star and the Knoxville News-Sentinel.
