In a powerful dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced her concerns on Thursday, June 27, 2024, criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision on Idaho’s abortion law.
She stated that it is “not a victory for pregnant patients,” despite allowing emergency abortions for now.
In a nutshell, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that emergency room abortions in Idaho could remain in effect, for now.
But at the same time, the court sidestepped ruling on whether Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicted with a federal emergency room law that requires doctors to provide stabilizing care.
“It is delay,” Justice Jackson stated in her dissent, read aloud from the bench. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Justice Jackson pointed out that the court had a chance “to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it.”
“For as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price,” she continued. “Because we owe them — and the nation — an answer to the straightforward pre-emption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent.”
Later on Thursday, a Biden campaign adviser warned that “women’s health, lives, and freedoms remain in peril across the country because of Donald Trump.”
The adviser highlighted that women are being turned away at emergency rooms because “Trump’s Supreme Court majority overturned Roe v. Wade” in 2022, pushing pregnant patients “to the brink of death before receiving the care they need.”
“If Trump returns to the White House, he and his allies will ban abortion in all 50 states — without the help of Congress or the courts — putting even more women’s lives at risk,” the campaign adviser asserted.
The Supreme Court’s decision means the appeal brought by Idaho officials will be dismissed, and the lower court’s ruling allowing doctors in Idaho to perform abortions in emergency situations will stand for now.
However, this decision leaves the broader legal question unresolved and does not impact any other state, perpetuating the confusion over whether federal law overrides state bans.
