Abortion rights activists protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Aug 25, 2022
Reproductive rights advocates on Wednesday applauded a federal court ruling in Idaho allowing doctors to provide abortion care in cases of medical emergencies, but legal experts warned the decision could mark the beginning of the next fight over abortion rights at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of Idaho's Federal District Court ruled that the state's near-total ban on abortion care violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), siding with the U.S. Department of Justice.
"The justices could easily be deciding an EMTALA-related case in September, before the new term even begins."
The DOJ sued Idaho over the ban, arguing that doctors are required under EMTALA to provide stabilizing medical treatment to anyone who comes to an emergency department, and that includes pregnant patients who need abortions to treat medical emergencies.
Idaho's ban demands that doctors do "the opposite" of what they are trained and obligated to do, said Winmill: "effectively identify problems and treat them promptly so patients are stabilized before they develop a life-threatening emergency."
The ruling still allowed Idaho's ban on nearly all abortion care to go forward, but enforcement of the ban on emergency care will be blocked by Winmill's preliminary injunction as the DOJ's lawsuit proceeds.
"Thanks to this ruling, Idaho hospital emergency departments cannot deny abortions to patients experiencing a medical emergency," said Planned Parenthood Action Fund, while the group's president, Alexis McGill Johnson, tweeted, "We applaud this ruling."
\u201cThe consequences of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision are in plain sight. Yet, state politicians in Idaho wanted to further the cruelty by preventing people from getting emergency medical care \u2014 despite federal law.\n\nAbortion can be life-saving care. We applaud this ruling.\u201d— Alexis McGill Johnson (@Alexis McGill Johnson) 1661388456
The decision was handed down a day after a federal judge in Texas ruled against the Biden administration's directive that doctors in states banning abortion follow EMTALA and provide emergency care to pregnant people, leading legal observers including Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to warn that the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue in the coming months.
If the cases proceed to circuit courts in Texas and Idaho, Stern said, they will likely also hand down conflicting rulings.
\u201cThis decision conflicts with a ruling by a federal judge in Texas. The circuit courts will split, too. The Supreme Court is going to have to settle this issue\u2014whether federal law protects emergency abortion. There\u2019s going to be an abortion case on the docket 3 months after Dobbs.\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1661391403
As journalist Chris Geidner wrote at Law Dork:
It is not clear yet what is going to happen next, but, if Idaho appeals, that case would go to the reliably liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which would likely affirm Winmill's ruling. If the Justice Department appeals the ruling out of Texas, that case would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which is a step beyond conservative depending on the panel and would almost certainly affirm Hendrix's ruling.
At that point, either or both could make a request to the Supreme Court--perhaps even on the shadow docket, if the appeal to the circuit courts are actually seeking a stay of the district court's ruling during an appeal. If that happens, the justices could easily be deciding an EMTALA-related case in September, before the new term even begins.
Responding to the ruling in Idaho, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ "will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend the reproductive rights protected by federal law" and that it is "considering appropriate next steps" regarding the ruling in Texas.
Steven Mazie, who covers the Supreme Court for The Economist, suggested the cases could hinge on "what counts as a medical emergency."
\u201cCases may turn on threshold questions of what counts as a medical emergency. Biden adm guidance says serious risks to maternal health are included. TX & Idaho say anything short of imminent death isn\u2019t emergent and thus states can ban abortion before that point.\u201d— Steven Mazie (@Steven Mazie) 1661393274
"I can't believe in a matter of months we've gone from losing the constitutional right to abortion to debating whether doctors can provide lifesaving care to patients," said Kate Smith, senior director of news content for Planned Parenthood.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Reproductive rights advocates on Wednesday applauded a federal court ruling in Idaho allowing doctors to provide abortion care in cases of medical emergencies, but legal experts warned the decision could mark the beginning of the next fight over abortion rights at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of Idaho's Federal District Court ruled that the state's near-total ban on abortion care violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), siding with the U.S. Department of Justice.
"The justices could easily be deciding an EMTALA-related case in September, before the new term even begins."
The DOJ sued Idaho over the ban, arguing that doctors are required under EMTALA to provide stabilizing medical treatment to anyone who comes to an emergency department, and that includes pregnant patients who need abortions to treat medical emergencies.
Idaho's ban demands that doctors do "the opposite" of what they are trained and obligated to do, said Winmill: "effectively identify problems and treat them promptly so patients are stabilized before they develop a life-threatening emergency."
The ruling still allowed Idaho's ban on nearly all abortion care to go forward, but enforcement of the ban on emergency care will be blocked by Winmill's preliminary injunction as the DOJ's lawsuit proceeds.
"Thanks to this ruling, Idaho hospital emergency departments cannot deny abortions to patients experiencing a medical emergency," said Planned Parenthood Action Fund, while the group's president, Alexis McGill Johnson, tweeted, "We applaud this ruling."
\u201cThe consequences of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision are in plain sight. Yet, state politicians in Idaho wanted to further the cruelty by preventing people from getting emergency medical care \u2014 despite federal law.\n\nAbortion can be life-saving care. We applaud this ruling.\u201d— Alexis McGill Johnson (@Alexis McGill Johnson) 1661388456
The decision was handed down a day after a federal judge in Texas ruled against the Biden administration's directive that doctors in states banning abortion follow EMTALA and provide emergency care to pregnant people, leading legal observers including Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to warn that the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue in the coming months.
If the cases proceed to circuit courts in Texas and Idaho, Stern said, they will likely also hand down conflicting rulings.
\u201cThis decision conflicts with a ruling by a federal judge in Texas. The circuit courts will split, too. The Supreme Court is going to have to settle this issue\u2014whether federal law protects emergency abortion. There\u2019s going to be an abortion case on the docket 3 months after Dobbs.\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1661391403
As journalist Chris Geidner wrote at Law Dork:
It is not clear yet what is going to happen next, but, if Idaho appeals, that case would go to the reliably liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which would likely affirm Winmill's ruling. If the Justice Department appeals the ruling out of Texas, that case would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which is a step beyond conservative depending on the panel and would almost certainly affirm Hendrix's ruling.
At that point, either or both could make a request to the Supreme Court--perhaps even on the shadow docket, if the appeal to the circuit courts are actually seeking a stay of the district court's ruling during an appeal. If that happens, the justices could easily be deciding an EMTALA-related case in September, before the new term even begins.
Responding to the ruling in Idaho, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ "will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend the reproductive rights protected by federal law" and that it is "considering appropriate next steps" regarding the ruling in Texas.
Steven Mazie, who covers the Supreme Court for The Economist, suggested the cases could hinge on "what counts as a medical emergency."
\u201cCases may turn on threshold questions of what counts as a medical emergency. Biden adm guidance says serious risks to maternal health are included. TX & Idaho say anything short of imminent death isn\u2019t emergent and thus states can ban abortion before that point.\u201d— Steven Mazie (@Steven Mazie) 1661393274
"I can't believe in a matter of months we've gone from losing the constitutional right to abortion to debating whether doctors can provide lifesaving care to patients," said Kate Smith, senior director of news content for Planned Parenthood.
Reproductive rights advocates on Wednesday applauded a federal court ruling in Idaho allowing doctors to provide abortion care in cases of medical emergencies, but legal experts warned the decision could mark the beginning of the next fight over abortion rights at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of Idaho's Federal District Court ruled that the state's near-total ban on abortion care violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA), siding with the U.S. Department of Justice.
"The justices could easily be deciding an EMTALA-related case in September, before the new term even begins."
The DOJ sued Idaho over the ban, arguing that doctors are required under EMTALA to provide stabilizing medical treatment to anyone who comes to an emergency department, and that includes pregnant patients who need abortions to treat medical emergencies.
Idaho's ban demands that doctors do "the opposite" of what they are trained and obligated to do, said Winmill: "effectively identify problems and treat them promptly so patients are stabilized before they develop a life-threatening emergency."
The ruling still allowed Idaho's ban on nearly all abortion care to go forward, but enforcement of the ban on emergency care will be blocked by Winmill's preliminary injunction as the DOJ's lawsuit proceeds.
"Thanks to this ruling, Idaho hospital emergency departments cannot deny abortions to patients experiencing a medical emergency," said Planned Parenthood Action Fund, while the group's president, Alexis McGill Johnson, tweeted, "We applaud this ruling."
\u201cThe consequences of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision are in plain sight. Yet, state politicians in Idaho wanted to further the cruelty by preventing people from getting emergency medical care \u2014 despite federal law.\n\nAbortion can be life-saving care. We applaud this ruling.\u201d— Alexis McGill Johnson (@Alexis McGill Johnson) 1661388456
The decision was handed down a day after a federal judge in Texas ruled against the Biden administration's directive that doctors in states banning abortion follow EMTALA and provide emergency care to pregnant people, leading legal observers including Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to warn that the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue in the coming months.
If the cases proceed to circuit courts in Texas and Idaho, Stern said, they will likely also hand down conflicting rulings.
\u201cThis decision conflicts with a ruling by a federal judge in Texas. The circuit courts will split, too. The Supreme Court is going to have to settle this issue\u2014whether federal law protects emergency abortion. There\u2019s going to be an abortion case on the docket 3 months after Dobbs.\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1661391403
As journalist Chris Geidner wrote at Law Dork:
It is not clear yet what is going to happen next, but, if Idaho appeals, that case would go to the reliably liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which would likely affirm Winmill's ruling. If the Justice Department appeals the ruling out of Texas, that case would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which is a step beyond conservative depending on the panel and would almost certainly affirm Hendrix's ruling.
At that point, either or both could make a request to the Supreme Court--perhaps even on the shadow docket, if the appeal to the circuit courts are actually seeking a stay of the district court's ruling during an appeal. If that happens, the justices could easily be deciding an EMTALA-related case in September, before the new term even begins.
Responding to the ruling in Idaho, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ "will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend the reproductive rights protected by federal law" and that it is "considering appropriate next steps" regarding the ruling in Texas.
Steven Mazie, who covers the Supreme Court for The Economist, suggested the cases could hinge on "what counts as a medical emergency."
\u201cCases may turn on threshold questions of what counts as a medical emergency. Biden adm guidance says serious risks to maternal health are included. TX & Idaho say anything short of imminent death isn\u2019t emergent and thus states can ban abortion before that point.\u201d— Steven Mazie (@Steven Mazie) 1661393274
"I can't believe in a matter of months we've gone from losing the constitutional right to abortion to debating whether doctors can provide lifesaving care to patients," said Kate Smith, senior director of news content for Planned Parenthood.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.