The Supreme Court’s rejection of Idaho’s challenge to a federal emergency care law is offering temporary relief to doctors and patients in the state, but has failed to close the door on whether federal law allows doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies.
On Thursday, the justices ruled 6-3 that they dismissed the case as “improvidently granted,” which essentially means they shouldn’t have started it in the first place. They sent it back to the appeals court and overturned an earlier ruling that allowed the Idaho law to go unchallenged.
That means doctors in Idaho will be able to perform emergency abortions despite state restrictions — at least while the case works its way through the courts. Litigation will continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
But doctors and abortion rights advocates said the ruling is at best a short-term solution, and without long-term clarity, patients with pregnancy complications who live in states that ban abortion remain on the receiving end. limbo.
“The court should have provided the necessary clarifications to end the chaos and confusion about what EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] necessary once and for all, and failure to do so could very well result in more people being denied care,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told reporters.
The case centered on that law, a nearly 40-year-old law that requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
The Biden administration invoked EMTALA in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. Wade, saying state laws or mandates that employ a more restrictive definition of an emergency medical condition are preempted by federal statute.
But EMTALA does not specifically mention abortion and does not describe what procedures must be performed. Idaho argued that the state law supersedes the federal requirement.
The state allows abortion when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman,” but not if the patient’s health or reproductive future is at risk due to a catastrophic health consequence, such as loss of the uterus.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador told reporters Thursday he was confident the appeals court would rule in his favor.
“We are confident that we will win this case in the end,” Labrador said. “We hope the Ninth Circuit actually reads the Supreme Court’s tea leaves and understands that the Biden administration’s overreach needs to stop.”
However, because the justices have not resolved the underlying issues raised by the case, and because states have been reluctant to provide substantial guidance to doctors about what constitutes a medical emergency, abortion care continues to be a legal gray area in dozens of countries. States.
“What we were really hoping for was that the Supreme Court would rule very strongly that doctors should be able to provide care to patients, including in emergency situations where abortion care may often be necessary to stabilize patients,” Nisha Verma, obstetrician/gynecologist in Georgia said during a press conference.
Georgia’s “heartbeat” law bans abortions after about six weeks and includes exceptions for medical emergencies and “medically futile” pregnancies. But what this means in practice varies by state, and there is no standard definition or guidance.
“I think working here in Georgia, we’re constantly in a state of confusion, trying to navigate incredibly confusing laws with exceptions that just don’t make sense on the ground, that don’t take into account all the complexity that we’re dealing with. every day,” Verma added.
The Supreme Court may not end up waiting much longer. An appeal by the federal government in a case similar to the one in Idaho is already pending after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year ruled against the Biden administration regarding EMTALA in Texas.
The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court but asked the justices to put the petition on hold until the court resolved the Idaho case. The court will likely make a decision on hearing arguments in the fall, allowing it to rule after the November election.
The Supreme Court could also take up the Idaho case again after the appeals court makes a decision.
Labrador said he has been talking to hospitals and doctors to try to clear up any confusion about how Idaho’s abortion ban applies.
“They’ve been thinking… that they’re going to be sued all the time, when that’s not the case at all,” he said.
But some doctors in the state said they still feel vulnerable.
“The Attorney General of Labrador chooses not to listen to the vast majority of doctors who are deeply concerned, fearful. Fearing for the complications our patients suffer every day from abortion care and across the spectrum of reproductive health,” Caitlin Gustafson, an OB/GYN in Idaho, told reporters.
Jessica Evans-Wall, an emergency physician from Idaho, said she anticipates that her hospital’s legal team will still need to get involved if there is a case with a pregnant patient that she or her medical partners are unsure about.
“If I were faced with a case where I was concerned about a pregnant patient’s health as opposed to her life, I would still be concerned that I was in a gray area,” Evans-Wall said. In this scenario, we have to make decisions based on minimal information. I think most of us doctors still feel a little unprotected.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
