Supreme Court reinstates limits on Idaho abortion ban

The Supreme Court reinstated limits on Idaho’s near-total abortion ban on Thursday.

Idaho’s trigger law banning nearly all abortions went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, prompting the DOJ to file a lawsuit later that year. The DOJ argues that, in certain circumstances, Idaho’s ban conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act‘s (EMTALA) mandate for doctors to provide emergency “stabilizing care,” which they claim can include abortions.

“The writs of certiorari before judgment are dismissed as improvidently granted, and the stays entered by the Court on January 5, 2024, are vacated,” the order reads.

The ruling means an injunction on Idaho’s law put in place by a district court will remain in effect. The injunction prevents Idaho “from enforcing its abortion ban when the termination of a pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harms to a woman’s health,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion.

When the Supreme Court agreed to take the case in January, they paused the lower court’s injunction, allowing Idaho’s abortion ban to remain in effect until they issued their ruling.

Idaho’s law bans all abortions except for those deemed necessary to save the life of the mother and in the case of rape or incest.

In a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained that it would be “imprudent” for the Court to answer the central dispute in the case now.

“The parties dispute whether EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortions—or any other treatment forbidden by state law—as necessary stabilizing care,” Barrett wrote.

“Since this suit began in the District Court, Idaho law has significantly changed—twice,” she wrote. “And since we granted certiorari, the parties’ litigating positions have rendered the scope of the dispute unclear, at best.”

In his dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the majority’s “about-face” on its decision to consider the central issue in the case is “baffling.” He wrote that the underlying issue “is a straightforward question of statutory interpretation.”

“Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents,” he wrote. “That is regrettable.”

During oral arguments in April, Alito and Gorsuch questioned the DOJ about why EMTALA uses the phrase “unborn child” and asked how, in light of this, it would make sense to force doctors to perform an abortion.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the “Government’s preemption theory is plainly 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,’” he wrote.

The ruling in the case was briefly posted on the Court’s website Wednesday, though a Supreme Court spokesperson confirmed it had not yet been released.

All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!