After much anticipation, a leak, and rejection of another abortion-related case earlier this month the Supreme Court has dismissed Idaho and Moyle v. United States, allowing Idaho emergency rooms to perform abortions for now in a 6-3 majority.
This case sought to question whether abortions could be considered stabilizing care under EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, a 1986 federal law which requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide stabilizing treatment to emergency room patients, regardless of their ability to pay. After the Dobbs decision in 2022, “trigger” laws began enacted in states which already had abortion bans in place, including in Idaho, which the Biden administration sued on the basis that the state’s local abortion ban conflicted with EMTALA. According to Rewire News Group, when a federal law is in conflict with a state law, the federal law holds preemption, which was the basis of Justice Kagan’s ruling today.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision preserves the right to emergency care—including abortion care—for now, but makes clear why the courts have no place making medical decisions,” Dr. Daniel Grossman, director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health said in a statement emailed to Reckon. “Medicine is not black and white, and every pregnancy is different. Health care providers must be able to practice medicine without political interference—the health and wellbeing of patients depend on it.”
The ruling does not come as a surprise as a leaked version was published on SCOTUS’ website briefly yesterday. On Wednesday afternoon Bloomberg News reported that an opinion on the case, which Bloomberg caught before it was removed, stated that the court would dismiss the case and reinstate a lower court order to allow emergency abortions. This marks the second leak of an abortion case in the last two years. An initial draft majority of the Dobbs decision was leaked in May 2022, ahead of the official decision that came down a month later.
Abortion advocates warn that this isn’t a win for repro, but rather political strategy.
“Today the court took the politically convenient route by temporarily upholding federal protections for pregnant people five months before an election where abortion will be the key defining issue,” Nourbese Flint, President of All* Above All said in a statement emailed to Reckon. “Dismissing the case has everything to do with politics and little to do with protecting people’s health and safety. Anti-abortion politicians are putting people’s lives, health, and future fertility on the line to further their political agenda.”
Jennifer Driver, Senior Director of Reproductive Rights at State Innovation Exchange (SiX) also expressed disappointment in the courts.
“Our nation’s highest court had the opportunity to do the right thing and recognize the rights that EMTALA protects and put people over politics. And once again, they failed. This decision makes abundantly clear that the court is leaving the door open for ongoing attempts to deny emergency abortion care for pregnant people,” she said in a press release. “All the while, patients and providers across the country continue to navigate the confusion that comes from the never-ending legal ping-pong.”
EMTALA is critical in ensuring that pregnant people can access the healthcare they need. Post-Roe analysis by researchers published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine in 2023, found that one third of pregnancies involve emergency room visits, and about 15% include potentially life-threatening conditions.
Though this case is done for now, EMTALA could be challenged in the future. Abortion advocates say that now is not the time to turn an eye from abortion, as anti-reproductive rights measures have continued to pop up, especially in states which already have limited access to abortion care. Here are 5 hotspots for abortion and repro you should be following:
Iowa
This week could end with some major abortion changes in Iowa. Though a law banning abortion at six weeks went into effect in July 2023, it was temporarily blocked a few days later as it was challenged in the courts. After undergoing a long court battle, a decision is expected on Friday, according to Iowa Capital Dispatch.
This six-week ban, backed by Gov. Kim Reynolds, follows a trend of “fetal heartbeat” laws, which seek to prevent abortions once a so-called heartbeat can be detected in an ultrasound.
“As we gather here today at this very moment, the abortion industry is in the court trying to prevent this law from taking effect and stop once again the will of the people,” Reynolds said at a Christian conference in Des Moines last July. “But the passage of this legislation by even a wider margin in this time sends an unmistakable message: The heartbeat law was not hypothetical. It was not an empty gesture and it was not a mistake. It was an ironclad commitment to the smallest and most vulnerable among us. All life is precious and worthy of the protection of our laws.”
Fetal heartbeat is not an accurate medical term. Science that says at 6 weeks, embryos do not yet have hearts or heartbeats, according to the Associated Press.
With the six week ban blocked, Iowa allows abortions up to 21 weeks and six days gestation, and requires a 24 hour waiting period.
Wyoming
Since Roe was overturned Wyoming has faced three bans, two court cases, and continuous legal disputes on abortion, according to WyoFile.
Final arguments in a lawsuit challenging the state’s two bans wrapped in December, six months ago, leaving Wyomingans still awaiting the future of abortion access in their state.
There have been three bans, two court cases and significant legal wrangling over the subject since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Though abortion is legal in Wyoming until viability, around 24 to 26 weeks, there is only one abortion clinic in the state which serves not only the state, but individuals with neighboring states with bans like Idaho, North and South Dakota.
Michigan
A win for abortion access in the Midwest this week comes out of Michigan, with a judge blocking the state’s 24-hour waiting period for those seeking abortion. In 2022, voters said yes to amending the state constitution to enshrine reproductive rights and this waiting requirement conflicted with that, ruled the judge on Tuesday.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the judge also blocked the state’s informed consent law which required patients to review depiction or photographs of a fetus, a written description of the procedure used to perform their abortion, prenatal and parenting information and a pre screening on “prevention of coercion to abort,” and submit a form checking off these requirements.
Nevada
Though abortion is legal in Nevada up to 24 weeks gestation, advocates are seeking ensured protection through a citizen-led ballot initiative that could enshrine abortion access into the state constitution if passed.
“We can’t take anything for granted in a post-Dobbs world,” said Lindsey Harmon, president of the Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom Coalition, said at a press conference on June 24. “And that’s why we are really doubling down on the protections that we have in statute currently.”
According to the Nevada Current, on May 20, the organization turned in over 200,000 signatures to add their proposed abortion amendment to the November ballot, almost double the required 102,362 required to qualify. While the Secretary of State works on verifying the signatures, this initiative still has a long road ahead. To amend the state constitution in Nevada, an initiative must be voted on and passed in two consecutive election years, according to This is Reno.
Harmon said moving through with this initiative is setting a model for how other states can protect abortion rights as well.
“So, really, Nevada is playing an important role here because we are showing the rest of the nation what it looks like to be in a safe state, and to be proactive in ways that we know voters support this issue,” Harmon said. “We are really setting the stage and setting the example in an election cycle when all eyes are on Nevada.”
Wisconsin
SCOTUS isn’t the only court experiencing abortion leaks.
On Wednesday, Wisconsin Watch reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would take on a case from Planned Parenthood asking the court to overturn an 1849 law interpreted to ban abortion, and denying local anti-abortion groups from intervening in the case. The draft was not publicly posted and did not disclose which justices were in favor of accepting the case, according to Wisconsin Watch. The court is now sparking an investigation.
“Today the entire court was shocked to learn that a confidential draft document was ostensibly leaked to the press. I have contacted law enforcement to request that a full investigation be conducted. We are all united behind this investigation to identify the source of the apparent leak. The seven of us condemn this breach,” Chief Justice Annette Ziegler said in a statement after the story published.
This 1849 law previously saw an ongoing court battle, but was eventually determined to ban feticide, a non-consensual attack on a pregnant person which causes them to lose their fetus, not abortion according to Dane County Circuit Court Judge Diane Schlipper. The litigation resulted in 15 months of virtually no abortions in Wisconsin after Roe fell, with Planned Parenthood offering abortion again in September 2023, Reckon reported in December.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
