On June 27th, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that allows Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions in the event of medical emergencies. The case was originally filed in response to an Idaho law that prohibited abortions unless necessary to prevent a pregnant woman's death but made no exception for abortions necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman's health. The Idaho law is relatively unclear as to when Idaho doctors are permitted to provide abortions to women who are in danger of harm. Indeed, rather than risk non-compliance with Idaho law, doctors have been forced to airlift patients experiencing pregnancy complications out of the state to avoid the potential criminal penalties.
Before the law could take effect, the United States Justice Department brought the case against Idaho arguing that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA") requires Medicare-funded hospitals to provide essential care to patients experiencing medical emergencies. The District Court originally entered a preliminary injunction which allowed women in Idaho to obtain abortions in medical emergencies. Idaho appealed, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to stay the injunction. However, the Supreme Court then stayed the injunction and granted Idaho's petition for certiorari after the State filed an emergency application.
After taking the case on certiorari, the Court's 6-3 decision declared that the stay would be vacated and the writ of certiorari dismissed. Justice Kagan, writing for the majority, noted that the case had been "improvidently granted" and that "Idaho's arguments about EMTALA do not justify, and have never justified, either emergency relief or our early consideration of this dispute." The Court's procedural ruling signaled that the justices decided that they should not have taken up the case for now. The decision reinstated the District Court injunction, allowing hospitals to perform abortions to protect pregnant women's health.
Takeaway:
Crucially, the Court's decision did not address any of the substantive arguments in the case. Justice Ketanji Brown wrote a biting dissent condemning the majority for refusing to tackle the State's EMTALA arguments head on. Justice Brown pointed out that the Court's inaction will ultimately have a profound negative effect on pregnant women across the country as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. Justice Brown further noted, "[t]his Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas and elsewhere will be paying the price."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.