US Supreme Court Reallows Abortion in Idaho for Medical Emergencies

This is a temporary respite because the judges did not rule on the merits, sending the decision back to the lower courts.

“We are relieved for the moment but not really euphoric.” The president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in the United States, Nancy Northup, commented on the decision of the American Supreme Court to once again authorize abortion in the state of Idaho in cases of medical emergencies on Thursday, June 27. The judges of the highest American court, with a conservative majority, did not rule on the merits, referring the decision to the lower courts.

Idaho is one of the states that have banned or strictly regulated abortion since the Supreme Court gave them back, in June 2022, full latitude to legislate in this area. This conservative and rural state, located in the northeast of the country, only authorizes voluntary termination of pregnancy in rare exceptions, such as in cases of incest or imminent danger of death for the pregnant woman. Outside of this framework, anyone performing an abortion risks up to five years in prison.

In August 2022, a federal judge, seized by the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden, partially blocked the application of abortion legislation in Idaho, to the extent that it contradicted a federal law on medical emergencies. This requires hospitals affiliated with the government health insurance Medicare – the majority of them – to treat anyone presenting a medical emergency.

But in January, the Supreme Court suspended the federal judge’s decision while it ruled on the merits, therefore restoring the ban on abortion in Idaho in its full application. After hearing arguments from both sides in April, a majority of the justices – three conservatives and two progressives – considered that the Court had “granted inopportunely” this appeal, lifted the suspension of the federal judge’s decision and sent the case back to the lower courts.

This decision “will therefore prevent Idaho from enforcing its ban on abortion when termination of pregnancy is necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman’s health”specified the progressive Justice Elena Kagan. But this “isn’t a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho, it’s a delay”regretted her colleague Ketanji Brown Jackson, also a progressive.

“This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we squandered it. As long as we refuse to proclaim what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will pay the price.”she said.