17 hours ago
Bernd Debsmann Jr., BBC News, Washington
Reuters
Abortion rights activists outside the Supreme Court building
The U.S. Supreme Court accidentally leaked a key decision on abortion rights, appearing poised to overturn part of Idaho's near-total abortion ban.
According to documents posted on the court's website and quickly removed, the justices are expected to rule that Idaho cannot deny emergency abortions to women whose health is at risk.
The court said the opinion initially obtained by Bloomberg was published “inadvertently and in a short time frame” and that a final decision has “not yet been issued” but is expected to be released in due course.
But the decision was made public two years after the Supreme Court's decision, known as Roe v. Wade, which overturned people's right to abortion, was leaked.
Since then, various abortion laws have been enacted, with conservative states such as Idaho restricting the right to abortion.
The state is one of 14 states that bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with very limited exceptions.
The government has defended the ban, saying it allows abortions to save a patient's life and is under no legal obligation to expand such exceptions.
Therefore, state prosecutors argue, the law does not conflict with federal law.
The court's opinion on Idaho, published in full by Bloomberg, suggested the justices, in a 6-3 vote, would rule that the state should not have gotten involved in the case so soon.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that it was premature for the Supreme Court to intervene because positions on the issue are “still evolving.”
The report added that the court would likely reinstate an order allowing Idaho hospitals to perform emergency abortions to protect patients' health.
If so, the case would continue in a federal appeals court.
“It's not a victory, it's a delay.”
In an opinion published by Bloomberg, one of the Supreme Court's liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, said she wanted a firm decision rather than a dismissal that would send the case back to another court.
“Today's ruling is not a victory for Idaho's pregnant patients; it is a delay,” Judge Jackson wrote.
“While this court dithers and the country waits, pregnant women with medical emergencies are left in a precarious position, with their doctors not being informed of what the law requires.
But the accidental publication of the ruling immediately prompted a cautiously optimistic response from pro-abortion groups.
“At a time when lives are at risk, we hope this marks a step forward for patients' access to emergency abortion care,” the Caucus of Pro-Abortion Congressional Caucus said in an online post.
“Now it's up to Scotus [the Supreme Court] This is to ensure that this is true and that they will indeed uphold their rights and comply with federal law,” the group added.
“Any decision that fails to ensure patients have access to abortion care in an emergency would have devastating consequences,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood.
Kamala Harris: 'I don't eat anything for breakfast' on Roe v. Wade
The Biden administration is suing Idaho over its near-total abortion ban in 2022, with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra saying “women shouldn't have to be on the brink of death to receive treatment.”
Idaho countered that a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or Emtala, cannot preempt state law.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a prominent anti-abortion group, said in an April statement that the Biden administration's lawsuit was a “PR stunt” aimed at spreading “abortion lobby misinformation.”
“The Emtala case is based on the false premise that pregnant women cannot receive emergency medical treatment under pro-life laws,” said Kelsey Pritchard, a spokeswoman for the group.
“It is an unequivocal fact that pregnant women in all 50 states have access to abortion care, ectopic pregnancy care and medical emergencies,” she added.
During earlier arguments on the case in April, the court's nine justices appeared divided.
Documents leaked Wednesday suggested that most of the Supreme Court's conservative justices were sympathetic to Idaho's argument that Emtala would not force doctors to break state law.
Meanwhile, three liberal justices — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Jackson — appear to doubt whether Emtala would allow Idaho to deny abortions to pregnant women with serious health concerns.
The Associated Press reported in April that at least six pregnant women had been flown out of state for emergencies since the law went into effect in January.
By comparison, one patient required a similar emergency air transport in 2023.
In a separate decision earlier in June, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a move to restrict access to the abortion drug mifepristone.
The decision, which comes two years after the court struck down a nationwide abortion guarantee, was welcomed by pro-abortion activists.
