WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on two major abortion cases with significant national implications, as the justices revisit the issue for the first time since the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
The 2022 decision to end abortion rights sent shockwaves across the country, leading to a new wave of state restrictions on abortion and encouraging anti-abortion activists to look for other ways to restrict the practice.
In the more closely watched case, the court is considering whether to impose new restrictions on the commonly used abortion pill, mifepristone, including introducing new restrictions on mail access.
In another case, which has received less attention but which could have far-reaching implications of its own, the justices are considering whether a near-total abortion ban in Idaho conflicts with a federal law that requires emergency medical care for patients, including pregnant women.
Rabia Muqaddam, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports abortion rights, said the 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization “set off a chain reaction that we’re seeing in every way,” including the two cases now before the court.
Theories that were once considered “on the fringe” are now “mainstream enough to make it to the Supreme Court,” she added.
The new cases show that the court’s stated goal of abandoning the task of deciding what conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh called “difficult moral and political questions” was easier said than done. As such, the upcoming rulings will provide further evidence of how far the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is willing to go to restrict abortion access.
In the mifepristone case, the court is considering whether to impose new restrictions on the availability of the pills, including access by mail. Such a move would drastically decrease women’s ability to obtain the pills, especially in states with new abortion restrictions.
The legal question in the Idaho case is whether a federal law requiring stabilization of treatment for emergency room patients trumps state restrictions in certain circumstances when doctors believe an abortion is necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s health.
Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group representing anti-abortion interests in both cases, said the legal issues in each reflect the Biden administration’s overreach in response to Roe’s overturn.
“Both are cases where the federal government is doing things, directly or indirectly, to interfere with state pro-life laws,” he added.
Based on oral arguments from earlier this year, it seems likely that anti-abortion groups will lose in the mifepristone case, leaving the status quo unchanged. This means the Idaho case could have a greater practical impact if the court sides with the state, which seems possible based on the questions asked by the justices.
Decisions are expected by the end of the month, when the court traditionally concludes its nine-month term, which begins in October. The court will also issue a series of other rulings on controversial issues, including former President Donald Trump’s claim to immunity from prosecution in his election interference case.
The next decision day is Thursday.
The mifepristone case attracted national attention last year when a federal judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling completely invalidating the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the pill, putting its availability into question.
The Supreme Court quickly suspended that decision, and the scope of the case narrowed somewhat during the appeal process.
The FDA’s approval of the drug is not on trial, just subsequent decisions that facilitated its access, including the finding that made the drug available by mail.
In oral arguments, the justices questioned whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who filed the challenge had legal standing simply because they oppose abortion and, in certain hypothetical situations, could be required to provide emergency treatment to women suffering from complications resulting from ingestion. of medicines. the pill.
The Idaho case hinges on whether Idaho’s abortion ban conflicts with a federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Employment Act, or EMTALA.
The Biden administration says so because Idaho’s ban includes only a small exception to save a pregnant woman’s life. The administration argues that EMTALA requires more than that, meaning that doctors should be able to perform abortions in a broader range of emergencies in which a woman’s health is in danger, even if she is not at imminent risk of death.
Idaho officials downplay the tension between the two laws, saying the federal law does not override the state’s own laws regulating health care.
The Supreme Court in January allowed Idaho to enforce its law, prompting the state’s St. Luke’s Health System to report that it was forced to transport patients out of state for abortions to occur out of fear that its doctors could be processed. .
A broad ruling in favor of Idaho would affect, at a minimum, a handful of states that have abortion bans similar to Idaho’s and that do not have a health exception. Abortion is actually prohibited in 14 states, but laws differ regarding the rare occasions when an abortion may be permitted to protect the pregnant woman’s health.
Although abortion rights advocates are now hopeful that they will win the mifepristone case on the pending issue, they fear a loss in the Idaho dispute and insist that such an outcome should not be seen as a form of compromise on the part of the Supreme Court.
A ruling in favor of Idaho officials “would be a new low for the Supreme Court, regardless of whether they settle a technical legal issue in a different case that also has to do with abortion,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports abortion rights advocates in both cases.
She pointed out that if the anti-abortion side loses in the mifepristone case on the standing issue, the issue could still return to court with different plaintiffs who could have a better argument to support the position, which could lead to a subsequent ruling on the merits. of their demands.
“Even if we live to fight another day… we know our opponents in this case are not finished,” Kolbi-Molinas added.
ADF’s Campbell said he would evaluate each case separately if the court ruled in favor of his side in the EMTALA case and against him in the FDA’s mifepristone regulations.
“I would consider the EMTALA decision a significant victory and consider the FDA decision unfortunate,” he added.
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
