SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Abortion rights activists protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Fears of Another Supreme Court Assault on Abortion Rights Grow After Idaho Ruling
"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 one advocate.
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."
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.
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."
"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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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."
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.
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."
"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."
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.
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."
"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.