SCOTUS Allows Emergency Abortions in Idaho
The decision reverses the Court's previous stay of a lower court decision blocking part of the law.

The Supreme Court will allow emergency abortions in Idaho, according to an opinion released Thursday, one day after it was accidentally briefly posted to the Court's website.
The Court ruled 6–3 to lift a stay it had placed in January on a lower court ruling allowing emergency abortions to go forward in Idaho while a lawsuit over the state's controversial abortion law went forward. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
After the Supreme Court struck down the national right to abortion in 2022, Idaho enacted one of the nation's strictest abortion bans. Not only does the state prohibit abortion from conception, but it also prohibits abortions required to protect a pregnant woman's physical health. An abortion is only allowed when it is "necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman."
The Justice Department quickly sued Idaho, arguing that the state's abortion ban violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law that requires many hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients who show up to emergency rooms seeking help.
"The Idaho law would make it a criminal offense for doctors to comply with EMTALA's requirement to provide stabilizing treatment, even where a doctor determines that abortion is the medical treatment necessary to prevent a patient from suffering severe health risks," the suit states. "Beyond care necessary to prevent death, the law provides no defense whatsoever when the health of the pregnant patient is at stake. And, even in dire situations that might qualify for the Idaho law's limited 'necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman' affirmative defense, some providers could withhold care based on a well-founded fear of criminal prosecution."
An Idaho federal district court judge placed a preliminary injunction on part of Idaho's law in August 2022. "It's not about the bygone constitutional right to an abortion," Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote. "The court is called upon to address a far more modest issue — whether Idaho's criminal abortion statute conflicts with a small but important corner of federal legislation. It does."
Idaho appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed the block in January, allowing the law to be enforced while the legal battle continued.
"The on-the-ground impact was immediate," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring opinion on Thursday. "To ensure appropriate medical care, the State's largest provider of emergency services had to airlift pregnant women out of Idaho roughly every other week, compared to once in all of the prior year (when the injunction was in effect)."
With Thursday's decision, the Supreme Court has dismissed Idaho's appeals, allowing doctors to provide health-preserving abortions in the state while the case continues.
"With this Court's writ of certiorari dismissed, the lower courts can proceed with this litigation in the regular course. And with this Court's stay dissolved, the District Court's preliminary injunction will again take effect," wrote Kagan. "That will prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban when the termination of a pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harms to a woman's health."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I believe Emma is misstating the ruling. The court did not dismiss Idaho's appeals. They lifted a stay by the district court. They did not rule on the merits. This cast could return to the Supreme Court after the appellate process.
Its all rather convoluted. I think any headline trying to sum it up would be badly written. I guess there are concepts in law that the English language just doesn't handle with few words.
“With this Court’s writ of certiorari dismissed, the lower courts can proceed with this litigation in the regular course. And with this Court’s stay dissolved, the District Court’s preliminary injunction will again take effect,” wrote Kagan. “That will prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban when the termination of a pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harms to a woman’s health.”
1. So, the Ninth Circuit will hand down a decision and then SCOTUS can agree to review that decision.
2. Is “woman’s health” defined as it was in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)? If so, then EMTALA is Roe in disguise. OTOH, Doe v. Bolton could be considered to be overruled sub silentio by Dobbs.
This decision is actually about an EO Biden issues saying abortion is part of stabilizing care covered under EMTALA. It has nothing to do with emergencies. He seeks to declare pregnancy a non medically stabilized condition to get around Roe. Alito correctly mocked the state during oral. Even pointing out EMTALA requires life saving measures for the fetus, which abortion does the opposite.
I don’t think EMTALA covers not-alive entities like ‘unicorns’ in people’s imagination.
Do tell. How many people’s lives have been saved pre-viable?
Ironically; The question is 100% an oxymoron.
You’ve already proven you failed biology. We get it.
Emtala literally discusses children in womb.
[WE] have 'faith' in our bigotry.
Even if it has to come at the end of a Gov-Gun! /s
I am wondering if the EMTALA (why does that sound like a terrorist organization to my ear...) is constitutionally sound. I dont think Medical Care is an enumerated power under the Federal Constitution. Did they slip that in by referring to hospitals that accept Medicare must comply? I agree with the sentiment but not the legality.
Indeed. You score a point on that one.
I don't have time to read the whole article so just answer me this, if a woman with a vertical ID finds herself pregnant, does she have options that will allow her to continue going to the bar?
Yes. But she still can't get a FAFSA grant.
A judge a pol and a preacher walk into an ER and second guess medical opinions. No joke.
Castration is healthcare.
"Only when the State Government mandates it though.", Dobbs.
Precisely one of the cases Roe v Wade used to establish the right to pre-viable abortion was the Individual Right to one's own fertility (a State mandated sterilization case).
A circumcision is supposedly health care. A vasectomy is health care. Seems a double orchectomy would fall under that category.
A judge a pol and a preacher try to define murder. Legit
I judge tries to define the word "woman" and appeals to a higher authority.
Well, except for those medical opinions which determine that the fetus, in fact, is both viable and not a danger to mother; we can second-guess those to get the desired pro-abort result.
If it's viable it doesn't need the Woman. Is there a case where the Woman's life requires the pregnancy?
I dare say you would not be viable in your current state if you were dropped off in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness. Should we be able to kill you then? … sorry – to ‘eject’ you from the class of living humans?
Just trying to illustrate the defective way you use the word ‘viable’.
Are rides to the Alaskan wilderness against the law now too?
Whatever it takes to save Mr. Grizzly?
Power-madness is a disease.
I agree – power madness is a ‘disease’ … but at least distinguish between biological fact and your cognitively dependent stance,
… which can be twisted into killing people in comas, killing dimentia patients, (heck – even killing napping people that never remember what they dreamt about) etc. You’d be arguing for someone taking out FJB on the debate stage with a headshot during one of his many ‘senior moments’
[disclaimer - that last part wasnt meant to imply you are a lefty or dem... I'm pretty sure you aren't]
Or maybe it’s just none of those things but a simple recognition that…
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
Nobody has a ‘right’ to life-support. ‘Rights’ are inherent not ‘entitlements’ to others bodies. Especially when it requires organ donation from another.
Seriously; Pro-Life is essentially establishing the premise for Gov-Gun mandatory organ donation to save ‘life’. A ‘life’ that hasn’t even started yet. Just “potential”. So it’s not really a ‘saving’ basis but a FORCED reproduction.
But the real violation is of the 4th and 13th Amendment Rights held by the people. Which would also be the ‘rights’ preventing Gov-Gun forced organ donation, sterilization and pretty much any government tyranny that digs into one’s own autonomy as an Individual Person. It’s a power that should be reserved to the people and ‘government’ should not be the arbiters of such PERSONAL decisions.
The words "potential" and "moral" doesn't exist in the US Constitution but the words "The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against ... seizures, shall not be violated" and "Neither ... involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States"
Roe v Wade (already too Pro-Life) actually left post-viable to the State's. It should've ruled every person complete control of themselves PERSONALLY and the State could only legislate any actual 'act' of killing in the process (i.e. Fetal Ejection).
Course as Power-madness goes - like a drug the little power granted to State is never enough. So Dobbs had to open the POWER gate even more so "The State" could downright 'own' the whole pregnancy. Destroying the 4th and 13th for every Pregnant Woman in the USA.
Ugh! This is not the morally compromised hill to die on. There are so many things you ignore to make sure you can keep your ideological purity (as you see it) on this issue.
I really dont want to get into it. You want to be considered right and pure in the small subset of reality and consequences that you posit to sustain your arguments - fine! There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of .... yada yada.
The govt is not 'forcing reproduction' - that process started when sex ended up with a fertilized egg. The govt would be merely having the majority of people live up to the responsibilities and consequences of what that act entails. I dont think you will ever accept that interpretation and yours is too 'clean room' unrealistic to have merit (IMO).
The point you should argue is that society has drifted so far away from personal responsibility that it is inconsistent to try to enforce it only in pockets of lived experiences. An anarchic view of personal ownership and freedom. The social contract you imply by your 'fetal ejection' proposal [forced by acknowledgment of biologic fact] just leads to a totally debauched failed culture, society and nation.
I dont think we'll ever agree. SMH (as i know you will as well).
"I don't think we’ll ever agree."
We don't need to. You just need to stop pulling out Gov-Guns and flexing them at all the Individuals that make-up a State. Individuals don't need to all be lock-stepped into your own personal belief as to what is/is-not the 'responsibility' of a Women. How's every pregnancy that happens inside a State any of your business? It's a violation of privacy. When your closest family goes on life-support do you think it's the job of "The State" (all us voters) to determine if/when you decide to donate your organs or life-support gets pulled. Maybe I don't approve of you not donating your body organs to my 'unicorn' either. Maybe I should pull out some Gov-Guns and FORCE you to donate your body to my 'unicorn' parade.
Govt ‘guns’ are all over the place. Do you want no government at all – to let angels of our better nature rule the day? We saw where that leads in ‘the summer of love’, in the ‘CHAZ’. There is a place for government.
I would love it if we all had a harmony of our own individual codes of conduct that would allow us all to rule ourselves and still function with others.
Your obsession with ‘govt guns’ on this topic is disproportionate to …. you know what? as i was typing this I realized that maybe it is not disproportionate.
You do tend to use that phrase and general theme enthusiastically in most of your comments. Maybe I’m associating your passion on this topic too closely with Hank’s wierdly doting obsession on abortion and so mistake you for someone as unbalanced in its expression as compared to other topics. I think it was my perception of unbalanced concern for this that irritated me about you. [i still hate the term and general concept of ‘fetal ejection’ and think you use the term ‘govt guns’ too much – but you make your point]
We have different perspectives and concerns on this topic. Our philosophical frameworks here do not align so its hard to see how we could do anything but agree to disagree.
Indeed. We all can "agree to disagree" until someone lobbies to pull out Gov-Guns. I use that phrase precisely so the very 'tool' of 'government' doesn't so easily get diluted under common-talk notions that 'government' is just a suggestion. It isn't.
Every totalitarian nation has come about by common-talk diluting of that 'tool' so carelessly. No biggie; It's just 'government' until police end up shooting someone over it which is the very purpose of putting 'government' into any equation.
I know why you use that phrase (govt guns, etc ) – I would hope its true here that everyone else understands as well… Pulling it out so often reduces it to an irritating pop-up on your computer screen that you just click to get rid of without thinking of. The interruption is the residual memory – not the message.
Used sparingly (say, in response to newbies) it might still have effect. Otherwise it becomes background noise.
I actually dont mind that one as much as 'fetal ejection' but then, i think you know why by now.
Individual Liberty is a morally compromised hill to die on? Well, I've always known that Conservatives had no use for individual liberty, thank you for confirming that.
What biological fact? A fertilized egg is not a child. There is a point when the egg becomes a child but between thise two points is where the disagreement arises. You can no more claim your faith based ideas are rooted in biology than an Alphabet Mafiaette can claim a man is a woman is based in biology.
>>federal law that requires many hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients who show up to emergency rooms seeking help.
kill what lives inside me immediately or I will get all unstable up in this mo'fo.
^THIS is the BS propaganda of Pro-Life.
The blind-assumption that the only solution is one cooked up in their own heads. Hut hum: Fetal Ejection.
I get the feeling you haven't dealt with the medical profession all that much. If a doctor wants to get paid he or she needs to document everything to be able to show the insurance company, including Medicare and Medicaid, that the tests ordered followed a logically reasoned diagnosis and that their procedures followed from the logical interpretations of the tests administered.
"I will get all unstable up in this mo fo" is not a logical diagnosis, test result or procedure. The doctor may use the emotionally charged statement while trying to diagnose the patient, but they aren't going to perform an abortion procedure without first determining that the woman is in fact pregnant, how far along she is and that her life is in danger.
Even then they may council possible alternatives. For example in many cases when a pregnancy is not looking like it is processing properly bed rest will be recommended as an option rather than ending the pregnancy. My wife and I faced that problem with our son. So my wife stayed in bed for the last trimester only rising for meals and bathroom. But then we wanted a child, which changes everything.
As Alito pointed out during oral arguments, Idaho also allowed abortions in medical emergency situations. But the democrats are suing to invalidate the entire law to get the same effect as the law as written.
Get a better mentor than ENB Emma. Try researching topics you write about.
You expect a modern woman AND a journalist to work? You monster.
Pro-Life....
So long as my imaginary 'unicorn' doesn't get killed; real people dying over it is a-okay. Power-madness is a disease. Isn't it funny how Pro-Life's "my unicorn" is entirely in someone else's PERSONAL life.
It's not pro life. It's pro punishment. The woman sinned by having sex out of wedlock so she must be punished by being sentanced to life as a parent. When you look at their obsession through that lens it all makes sense.
Note the lack of going after the other 50% of the fertilized egg situation. They don't want to enslave the "father" to supporting the child. They've that up to the woman to do by seeking a judges ruling to saddle him with financial responsibilities. That of course assumes she can even afford a lawyer after the medical bills that bankrupt her. But they don't care you see.
When the child of the single mother grows up and commits serious crimes they've no problem with murdering the child then. They've no worries that the child might starve to death or die from some medical problem that is too costly to deal with. All that is important that it be born. Which makes no sense unless you realize they need the woman to be punished by having the child.
I get the impression I'm not getting the whole story.
How will these aborted kids ever get FAFSA?
the suit states.
Classic Emma.
Who isn't actually a human being. If you haven't figured it out yet, every single Emma Camp article is written by ChatGPT.
You seem awfully ChatGPTesque.
Your mother seems very OnlyFans-esque.