Draft opinion reinstates lower court abortion order | The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho when a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk, according to a copy of the opinion briefly posted Wednesday on the court’s website and was obtained by Bloomberg News.

The document suggests that the court will rule that she should not have become involved so quickly in the case over Idaho’s strict abortion ban. On a 6-3 vote, it would reinstate a lower court order that had allowed hospitals in the state to perform emergency abortions to protect the health of pregnant patients.

Such an outcome would leave the heart of the matter unresolved. It would also mean that important questions remain unanswered, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a joint conversation.

“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It’s a postponement,” she wrote.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that its publishing unit had accidentally posted a document on Wednesday. An opinion in the Idaho case would be issued “in due course,” court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe said in a statement.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are listed as dissenting from the decision.

The finding may not be the court’s final ruling because the judges’ decision has not yet been officially released. The decision would mean the case would continue in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and could end up back before the judges.

According to Greer Donley, a reproductive law scholar and professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School, the Supreme Court may be reluctant to rule on abortion based on substance rather than procedural grounds in an election year.

A new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that about 7 in 10 American adults support protecting access to abortion for patients experiencing miscarriage or other pregnancy-related emergencies.

The decision would reverse the Supreme Court’s previous order allowing an abortion ban in Idaho to temporarily take effect even in medical emergencies. Several women have since required medical airlift from the state in cases where abortion is a routine treatment to prevent infections, bleeding and other serious health risks, Idaho doctors say.

The nation’s top health official, Xavier Becerra, held a planned meeting with Idaho doctors and patients on Wednesday to discuss the state’s strict abortion ban in Boise. Sarah Thompson, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Idaho, said that if a woman’s waters break early in pregnancy, when the fetus has no chance of survival, she can’t treat the patient by delivering the baby early.

“While there is nothing we can do to save her baby, there are things we can do to preserve her health and future fertility,” Thompson said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it hopes the court “listens to the scientific evidence and medical experts and will ultimately affirm the availability of emergency abortion care for people in every state,” General Counsel Molly Meegan said.

The case began when the Biden administration sued Idaho, arguing that the abortion ban violated federal health care law because doctors would not be allowed to perform abortions to stabilize pregnant patients in rare emergencies when their health is seriously at risk.

Idaho argued that the ban allows abortions to save a pregnant patient’s life and that federal law does not require the exceptions to be expanded. The Public Prosecution Service declined to comment on Wednesday.

Katie Daniel, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said a state court in Idaho has ruled that women’s lives don’t have to be in imminent danger for action to be taken.

Most Republican-controlled states began imposing restrictions after the justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, and Idaho is one of 14 states that ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with very limited exceptions.

The case will likely be taken back to the Supreme Court, said Rachel Rebouche, dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law and a researcher in reproductive law. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a similar case that federal law does not override an abortion ban in Texas.

So while the Supreme Court’s ruling would allow abortion in medical emergencies in Idaho, at least for now, Rebouche said, “Nearly 38 million people live in the 5th Circuit. That’s a lot of people whose lives won’t change at all from this.”

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said a decision without explicit guarantees that patients can obtain abortions in medical emergencies would be “catastrophic.”

Reports of pregnant women being barred from U.S. emergency rooms increased after the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the constitutional right to abortion, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in Idaho’s favor, it would create a “world where women would have to lose their reproductive organs,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University and an expert on federal EMTALA. law.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit fell under a federal law that requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide stabilizing care regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. The law is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA.

Virtually all hospitals accept Medicare, which requires emergency room doctors in Idaho and other states that ban abortions to perform abortions as necessary to stabilize a pregnant patient and prevent serious health risks, such as the loss of reproductive organs, it said Department of Justice.

Idaho argued that the patient’s life exception covers dire health conditions and that the Biden administration misinterpreted the law to circumvent the state ban and expand abortion access.

Carol Tobias, chair of the National Right to Life Committee, said his group was pleased that the Justice Department says its arguments apply to rare cases.

Doctors say Idaho’s law has made them afraid to perform abortions, even if a pregnancy seriously endangers a patient’s health. The law requires anyone convicted of performing an abortion to receive a prison sentence of at least two years.

A federal judge initially sided with the Democratic administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to take full effect in January.

Information for this article was contributed by Amanda Seitz, Linley Sanders, Geoff Mulvihill, Devi Shastri and Hallie Golden of The Associated Press.