WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will rule this month on two major abortion cases with significant national implications, as the justices revisit the issue for the first time since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The 2022 decision to end abortion rights sent shockwaves across the country, prompting a new wave of state abortion restrictions and encouraging anti-abortion activists to seek other ways to curb the practice lay.
In the most closely watched case, the court is considering whether to impose new restrictions on the widely used abortion pill mifepristone, including imposing new restrictions on mail access.
In the other case, which has received less attention but could itself have far-reaching consequences, the justices are considering whether a near-total abortion ban in Idaho violates a federal law that requires emergency medical care for patients, including pregnant women.
Rabia Muqaddam, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports abortion rights, said the 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization “set off a chain reaction that we’re seeing in all kinds of ways,” including the two cases now in court.
Theories previously considered “on the fringes” are now “sufficiently mainstream to reach the Supreme Court,” she added.
The new cases show that the court’s stated goal of avoiding deciding what conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh called “tough moral and policy questions” was easier said than done. As such, the upcoming rulings will provide further evidence of how far the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is willing to go in curbing access to abortion.
In the mifepristone case, the court is considering whether to impose new restrictions on the availability of the pills, including access by mail. Such a move would dramatically reduce women’s ability to obtain the pills, especially in states with new abortion restrictions.
The legal question in the Idaho case is whether a federal law requiring stabilizing treatment for emergency room patients trumps state restrictions in certain circumstances when doctors believe an abortion is necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s health.
Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian legal group representing anti-abortion interests in both cases, said the legal issues in each of these cases reflect the Biden administration’s overreach in response to overturning Roe.
“These are both cases where the federal government is doing things, directly or indirectly, to interfere with state pro-life laws,” he added.
Based on oral arguments earlier this year, it seems likely that anti-abortion groups will lose in the mifepristone case, leaving the status quo unchanged. That means the Idaho case could have a greater practical impact if the court backs the state, which seems possible based on questions from the justices.
Rulings are expected by the end of the month, when the court traditionally ends its nine-month term that begins in October. The court will also issue a slew of other rulings on current issues, including former President Donald Trump’s claim to immunity from prosecution in his election interference case.
The next sentencing day is Thursday.
The case against mifepristone drew national attention last year when a federal judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling that completely invalidated the pill’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration, calling its availability into question.
The Supreme Court quickly stayed that ruling, and the case’s scope narrowed somewhat during the appeal process.
The FDA’s approval of the drug is not up to the court, but only on subsequent decisions that made its access easier, including the finding that the drug was made available by mail.
During oral arguments, the justices questioned whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who brought the case had legal standing simply because they object to abortion and in certain hypothetical situations of women suffering from complications resulting from taking medications on the emergency room should provide treatment. the pill.
The Idaho case centers on whether Idaho’s abortion ban violates a federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA.
The Biden administration says it does, because Idaho’s ban includes only a narrow exception to save a pregnant woman’s life. The government argues that EMTALA needs more than that, meaning doctors should be able to perform abortions in a broader range of emergency situations where a woman’s health is at risk even if she is not at immediate risk of death.
Idaho officials are downplaying the tension between the two laws, saying the federal law does not override the state’s own laws regulating health care.
The Supreme Court allowed Idaho to enforce its law in January, prompting the state’s St. Luke’s Health System to report that it was required to transport patients out of state to perform abortions, fearing the doctors could be prosecuted become. .
A broad ruling in Idaho’s favor would at least affect a handful of states that have abortion bans similar to Idaho’s but do not have a health exception. Abortion is effectively banned in 14 states, but laws differ in addressing the rare cases in which an abortion might be permitted to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
While abortion rights advocates are now hopeful that they will win the Mifepristone case on the pending issue, they fear a loss in the Idaho dispute and emphasize that such an outcome should not be seen as a compromise that the Supreme Court brokers.
A ruling in favor of Idaho officials “would be a new low for the Supreme Court, regardless of whether they get a technical legal question right in another case that also happens to have to do with abortion,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports abortion rights advocates in both cases.
She pointed out that if the anti-abortion side loses in the Mifepristone case on the standing question, the issue could still return to court with different plaintiffs who may have a better argument for eligibility, which could lead to a subsequent ruling on the merits. of their claims.
“Even if we live to fight another day … we know that in this case our opponents are not ready yet,” Kolbi-Molinas added.
ADF’s Campbell said he would review each case individually if the court ruled in favor of his side in the EMTALA case and ruled against it under the FDA’s mifepristone regulations.
“I would consider EMTALA’s decision an important victory and I would consider the FDA’s decision unfortunate,” he added.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
