On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for now, Idaho’s abortion ban cannot be enforced in medical emergencies. The federal law, also known as EMTALA, requires emergency physicians to stabilize patients — which can include abortions. Idaho code only allows the procedure if the life of the mother is in danger, not to prevent serious health complications.
The opinion does not rule on the merit of the case but sends it back to lower courts. It also reinstates an injunction protecting physicians from prosecution when providing emergency abortions. Reactions to the ruling were mixed across the board.
Attorney General Raúl Labrador said he was disappointed by the ruling, but litigation on the matter should continue.
“If you read the opinion closely, what they're saying is that the government made so many concessions in their briefing and in their oral arguments that it doesn't need to be expedited, like it was expedited because the U.S. government made a broad interpretation of EMTALA, and was, in essence, trying to make Idaho or any hospital an abortion mill,” he said.
Under the state abortion ban, providers can be charged with a felony, get up to five years in prison and lose their license for performing an abortion outside of those necessary to prevent the death of a woman.
For months, medical associations, hospitals and doctors have warned of the consequences of the strict law, pointing to a recent report showing 22% of OBGYNs have left the state since the ban went into effect in 2022. They say the law directly affects recruiting medical professionals to Idaho as well.
“There's a tendency that some people in the medical community that want abortions in Idaho, they're actually exaggerating or lying about these things,” Labrador said.
“Yes. Some doctors are leaving. Why? Because they were making the vast majority of their money on abortions, or they wanted to live in a place that allowed abortions,” the Attorney General said. “But there's a bunch of doctors that are coming to Idaho. So this narrative that's out there is completely false. And Idaho will always be the best place to live.”
Labrador said Idaho code clearly allows for exceptions when the mother is at serious risk of losing her life and doctors have been misunderstanding it.
“You have left leaning, pro-abortion lawyers that are confusing them and giving them false information about the law,” he added.
St. Luke’s Doctor Duncan Harmon said providers have been unsure how sick someone needs to be for them to legally intervene.
“Where that line is remains unclear to me,” Harmon said. “The threat of a criminal penalty and jail time impacts me personally and can impact my family and I want to work in the best way that I can to care for my patients.”
“I would love to be a martyr for my job, but not all of us can do so,” he added.
He said the latest decision by the court is reassuring, but Idaho law should add a clear health of the mother exception.
Deputy General Counsel for St. Luke’s Peg Dougherty agreed the restoration of the injunction would give physicians breathing room to recommend abortions in emergency situations, but she highlighted the limitations of the ruling.
“There are many circumstances that are not going to fall within that EMTALA umbrella that are not emergencies. And so I think the chilling effect is alive and well there,” she added.
In a written statement Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D-Boise) said the case should have never made it to the Supreme Court in the first place.
“We are glad that, at least for now, women suffering catastrophic health emergencies will not have to be airlifted out of state,” she said.
“The ruling gives us the tiniest sliver of temporary relief, but gives us no genuine solution to the crisis that Republican legislators have unleashed upon the women and doctors of Idaho,” Wintrow wrote, urging voters to show up for the November election.
“This problem will only be solved at the ballot box,” she said.
The 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court justices means the case can now proceed to the Court of Appeals, where a District Court can consider further evidence and arguments before making a final decision.
