The Supreme Court’s abortion ruling on Thursday is a narrow one that applies only to Idaho and sends a case back down to the appeals court. Confusion among doctors in states that have strict abortion bans remains widespread. The case concerns the kinds of situations in which emergency room doctors could end a pregnancy.
Under Idaho law, it is a felony to provide nearly all abortions, unless the life of the mother is at risk. But what if a pregnancy threatens her health? For now, those abortions can happen in Idaho emergency rooms. “Essentially what we got is not true relief to people in Idaho or in other abortion-banned states,” says Dr.
Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN in Atlanta. “There is continued uncertainty, in terms of what is going to happen in the future.” The federal government has a law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act – or EMTALA – which says that anyone who comes into the emergency room must be stabilized before they’re discharged or transferred.
The Biden administration argued that should apply, even if the treatment is an abortion, and the patient is in a state that bans abortion with very limited exceptions. The court, in a 6-3 vote, dismissed the case, without ruling on its merits. Verma notes that the court did not establish that EMTALA is the standard across the country.
'Life of the mother' exceptions Idaho is one of six states that have abortion bans that do not include exceptions for the health of the mother. The other .