In a powerful dissent on Thursday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her fellow justices' decision to dismiss a case concerning state abortion bans meant to protect women's health. She warned that this dismissal could prolong the case and potentially endanger Americans.
"Will this court just have a do-over, rehearing, and rehashing the same arguments we are considering now, just at a comparatively more convenient point in time?" Jackson questioned in her dissent, which she read from the bench—an action reserved for when justices feel particularly passionate.
"Or maybe we will keep punting on this issue altogether, allowing chaos to reign wherever lower courts enable states to flagrantly undercut federal law, facilitating the suffering of people in need of urgent medical treatment."
The case revolves around whether Idaho’s abortion ban, which only allows abortions when a woman’s life is in danger, violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law, dating back to the 1980s, mandates that hospitals receiving federal funds stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies.
The Biden administration sued Idaho, arguing that the state's abortion ban forced doctors to violate federal law by delaying abortions until women were on the brink of death. The Supreme Court initially allowed Idaho’s ban to take effect but dismissed the case on Thursday as “improvidently granted,” meaning they believed it should not have been taken up. This decision allows Idaho doctors to resume performing emergency abortions.
“We cannot simply wind back the clock to how things were before the court injected itself into this matter. Our intervention has already distorted this litigation process,” Jackson stated in her dissent. “We permitted Idaho’s law to go into effect by staying the district court’s injunction in the first place, then allowed this matter to sit on our merits docket for five months while we considered the question presented.”
Jackson warned that letting the Idaho case continue could have broader implications across the US. While many states that ban abortion allow exceptions to protect women’s health, some, like Idaho, only permit abortions to save a patient’s life, potentially conflicting with EMTALA, as argued by the Biden administration.
Texas has already sued the Biden administration over EMTALA, claiming the law was being used to turn emergency rooms into "walk-in abortion clinics." Courts sided with Texas, blocking the Biden administration's EMTALA guidance on emergency abortions from taking effect in the state.
The dismissal of the Idaho case does not affect the Texas litigation, which could reach the Supreme Court as early as next term, according to Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
A final decision may not come until after the November elections. If Donald Trump wins the presidency, his administration could alter the interpretation of EMTALA and cease litigating the case, potentially allowing Idaho’s abortion ban to remain.
"This decision is just a temporary reprieve," said Nicole Huberfeld, a health law professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health. "It’s not the end of the line."
Jackson, while siding with the 6-3 vote to dismiss the case in allowing emergency abortions to resume in Idaho, disagreed with dismissing it as improvidently granted. She argued that federal law should override the state's ban where conflicts arise.
“This months-long catastrophe was completely unnecessary,” Jackson said. “This court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price.”
No comments:
Post a Comment