June 27, 2024
Emergency abortions can be performed in the state of Idaho — regardless of the state’s abortion ban – so says the Supreme Court. But this is not over. The justices just basically kicked the can down the road by saying they screwed up in even taking this case in the first place.
And yes – in case you’re wondering – this is the case that was accidentally released by the Supreme Court yesterday. And by and large – yesterday’s document that mistakenly appeared on the Supreme Court’s website for just a short time was the same as the official opinion released today.
So let’s talk about what that official opinion says. Or more like, what it doesn’t say. Today’s ruling from the justices was really just a temporary win for the Biden administration and abortion rights advocates. It simply says emergency abortions in the state of Idaho can continue – while these cases continue to play out in the lower courts. The supreme court did not address the main issue– which was – when it comes to abortion – if state law conflicts with federal law – which one prevails.
At least for today – the justices said the federal law wins. And that federal law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA. That law has been around for almost 40 years and says hospitals receiving federal funds – which is almost all of them – must stabilize or transfer patients needing emergency care and must provide care regardless of patient’s ability to pay, mental illness or other complications. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade – the Justice Department issued guidance to all hospitals saying abortions are considered emergency care and must be performed at hospitals across the country regardless of state abortion law. The problem with that is — the law in the state of Idaho makes it a felony to perform an abortion. There are exceptions to that law – but only if the life of the pregnant person is in danger, or if there was provable – with a police report — rape or incest. The conflict is – under EMTALA – emergency care is not just required if the “life” of the pregnant patient is at risk it is also required if the “health” of the pregnant patient is at risk. That is a significant difference.
In today’s ruling — six of the justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson and the chief justice all said we screwed up – we stepped into this case way too early and we should have waited until the cases officially made their way through the lower courts. So until these cases come back to us – which obviously they will – these EMTALA emergency abortions can continue in Idaho. The problem Idaho isn’t the only state where this very same conflict exists there are more than a dozen other states with this same ussie. And today’s decision leaves everyone in limbo.
What’s actually more interesting in today’s decision is the concurring opinoin from justice Jackson and the dissent from justice Alito joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.
Justice Jackson is pissed the court decided to kick the can down the road – she writes “so, as of today, the court has not adopted Idaho’s farfetched theories—but it has not rejected them either. Instead, the court puts off the decision. But how long must pregnant patients wait for an answer?”
Justice Alito’s agrees the Supreme Court should have ruled here – but he thinks Idaho should have won. He has a problem with the Justice Department’s interpretation of EMTALA saying just because it says hospitals are required to stabilize and transfer patients, that does not give the green light for abortion. “the government’s preemption theory is plainly unsound. … even if there were some ambiguity in the statutory text, we would be obligated to resolve that ambiguity in favor of the state.”
Read the opinion here.
