The U.S. Supreme Court is moving to temporarily allow emergency abortions in Idaho when a woman’s health is at risk, according to a copy of the ruling that appeared briefly on the court’s website.
The unsigned decision dismisses the case on procedural grounds, according to a 22-page document published by Bloomberg News. Such a ruling would reinstate a lower federal court ruling that suspended Idaho’s total abortion ban and said state hospitals can perform emergency abortions if necessary to protect the mother’s health.
The lawsuit focuses on the fact that a federal law requiring emergency care for any patient trumps Idaho’s strict ban on abortion, which allows the procedure only in rare exceptions, including when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger.
It was not clear whether the document was final, and a Supreme Court spokesman said it was only a ruling on the joined cases. Moil v. America And Idaho v. America Will be released eventually.
The Court’s Publications Department inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the Court’s website. Judgment of the court in cases Moil v. America And Idaho v. America Will be released in due course.
Patricia McCabe, spokeswoman for the Supreme Court of the United States
The unsigned decision, described as “per curiam,” meaning “by the court,” was split 6 to 3. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote part agreement and part dissent. He writes that federal law trumps Idaho’s strict ban, and he believes the Supreme Court should consider the issue immediately instead of sending it back to the lower courts.
The liberal justices, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts, all wrote or joined concurring opinions. The court’s conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented.
The document published online is dated June 26. But the court announced only two verdicts that morning. No one cares about abortion.
Maintain access to emergency abortions
If the document mirrors the final decision, it would be the second time this year that the justices have refrained from ruling on abortion qualifications. The ruling, released Wednesday, said the case was “improperly presented,” saying the justices would not rule on the merits but simply said access to emergency abortions would be maintained while the case proceeds.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said, “Idaho is precluded from enforcing its abortion ban when termination of a pregnancy is necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman’s health.”
According to him, the federal law in question, known asEmergency Medical Treatment and Labor LawIt “vaguely requires” that hospitals receiving federal funding provide any medical treatment necessary to stabilize a patient.
Katanji Brown Jackson agrees with this assessment. While agreeing to reconsider the case, it allowed Idaho’s abortion ban to take effect temporarily, describing it as an absolute “catastrophe.” State doctors “were forced to either watch their patients suffer or arrange for their patients to be evacuated from Idaho,” he added.
However, he diverged from the majority, saying that rejection on procedural grounds should not become a means of deferring certain issues to the court.
Judge Jackson wrote, “We cannot simply go back to the situation before the Court became involved in this matter. There is no good reason not to resolve this conflict now.”
A question is “deciding”.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito agreed that the court should have ruled on the merits of the case.
“This issue has always been ripe for decision,” said Mr. Alito wrote. Apparently, the court has simply lost the will to resolve the simple, yet sensitive and highly politicized issue this case presents. This is regrettable. »
Photo by Erin Schaaf, Reuters Archives
Justice Samuel Alito
According to him, federal law “does not require hospitals to perform abortions in violation of Idaho law,” he writes. Instead, he added, hospitals that receive Medicare funding must treat the “unborn child” and perform abortions.
Mme Barrett found common ground. Although he wrote that he agreed to the dismissal, the scope of Idaho law had changed “significantly — twice” since the hearing began and the parties’ positions “made the extent of the dispute clear, at best.”
Her conciliatory opinion echoes the questions she asked during oral argument, when she focused on the circumstances under which state law would allow emergency abortions and under which such procedures would be prohibited.
While abortion rights advocates welcomed the apparent outcome of the Idaho case, they cautioned that it was not a resounding victory.
“If the leaked announcement is accurate, it’s clear that pregnant women are not out of the woods,” said Alexa Colby-Molinas, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Program.
“Make no mistake: the Supreme Court had an opportunity to ensure once and for all that every pregnant woman has a fundamental right to emergency medical care in the event of an abortion, but it appears to have failed to do so.”
The expanded ruling in the Idaho case could have implications for a dozen states Roe v. Wade In 2022.
The federal Emergency Care Act was seen as one of the few — and narrow — ways the Biden administration has to challenge state abortion bans and protect access, though the legal battle affects only a limited number and type of patients.
9 after an 11-member appeals court panel asked the Idaho Supreme Court to intervene.e The circuit temporarily blocked the law. The judges, who agreed to hear the case, reinstated the ban.
Published in this article The New York Times.
Read the original version of the article (in English; subscription required)
