The Supreme Court made a ruling on Thursday, June 27, 2024, that hospitals in Idaho, which receive federal funds, must allow emergency abortion care to stabilize patients despite the state's strict ban on the procedure. This decision came after the Biden administration sued Idaho in 2022 over its abortion ban conflicting with federal law.
In one case, a woman named Nicole Miller went to St. Luke's Boise Medical Center due to heavy bleeding and hemorrhaging during her 20th week of pregnancy. Doctors refused to provide necessary treatment for her health risks related to the pregnancy, leading hospital workers to put her on a plane and send her to Utah for an abortion.
Dr. Kavita Patel, a doctor who criticized Samuel Alito's comments in the Supreme Court decision on abortion, argued that the focus should be on access to care rather than comparing it to cancer patients or demanding on-demand healthcare. She emphasized that doctors are not offering abortions on demand but instead ensuring medical care for pregnant women.
The Supreme Court's involvement in this case is one of two this term addressing abortion access nationwide following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Lower courts have issued conflicting decisions about the application of federal law.
Despite these developments, both sides expressed frustration with the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the appeal as 'improvidently granted,' without weighing in on the underlying issue: whether a federal law mandating doctors provide stabilizing care overrides state abortion bans like Idaho's.
President Joe Biden stated that this decision ensures women in Idaho receive necessary emergency medical care while litigation continues. However, critics argue that the court should have addressed the larger issues at stake.