The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed emergency abortions to be performed in a complex Idaho case that was dissented by the court’s conservative justices and could return to the Supreme Court again in the near future. At issue is an Idaho law that bans most abortions but allows them in cases “to 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 medical care to patients experiencing medical emergencies, and therefore requires them to provide certain abortions that are prohibited by Idaho law.
A district court sided with the Biden administration and issued a preliminary injunction authorizing emergency abortions, but the U.S. Supreme Court suspended the injunction in January and agreed to hear the case.
On Thursday, the High Court ruled on a one-page decisionIn a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case and allowed the district court’s injunction to stand, meaning the case will now be heard in lower courts and possibly back at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices were unanimous in siding with the Biden administration’s position on Thursday, as expected, but the court’s three conservative justices were divided on the impact of the ruling.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a concurring opinion noting that facts have changed since the Court became involved. For example, she wrote that the Idaho Legislature has amended the definition of “abortion” to exclude “the removal of a dead fetus” and “the removal of an ectopic pregnancy or hydatidiform mole.” The Biden administration, she wrote, has “rejected the notion that abortion is required as a stabilizing treatment for mental illness,” a concern that pro-lifers had throughout the case. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined Barrett’s concurring opinion.
“The dramatic narrowing of the conflict, particularly as the government’s abortion position addresses the mental health and conscience exemptions of health care workers, weakens the conclusion that Idaho would suffer irreparable harm from a preliminary injunction,” Barrett wrote. “Contrary to Idaho’s concerns at the injunction stage, the government’s interpretation of EMTALA is not intended to turn emergency rooms into ‘federal abortion zones governed by physician discretion rather than state law,’ as implemented by mandates to perform abortions on demand in the United States. Nor is it intended to deprive doctors and hospitals of conscience protections.”
“Thus, even if a preliminary injunction were issued, Idaho’s ability to enforce its laws would remain almost entirely intact,” Barrett wrote.
The ruling “allows proceedings to proceed in lower courts,” she wrote.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He wrote that EMTALA’s language requires hospitals to “stabilize both the ‘woman’ and the ‘fetus.'” Justice Alito wrote that the Biden administration’s position was “without merit.”
“Far from requiring hospitals to perform abortions, EMTALA’s language explicitly requires that Medicare-funded hospitals protect the health of pregnant women and ‘fetuses,'” Alito wrote.
Photo credit: Getty Images/Andrew Harnick/Staff
Michael Faust He has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years, and his work has appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today, Christian Post, Leaf Chronicle, Toronto Star and Knoxville News Sentinel.
