Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho, for now

COEUR d’ALENE — After the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday allowing Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions — for now, under narrow constraints — the debate over abortion access in Idaho reached downtown Coeur d’Alene.

About 10 demonstrators from Tiny Heartbeat Ministries, an anti-abortion nonprofit based in Pullman, Wash., gathered at Sherman and Third Street on Thursday afternoon. They held large signs with images of fetuses and shared anti-abortion booklets with passersby. 

Kenan Lauder, an outreach coordinator for Tiny Heartbeat Ministries, said the group came from the Moscow/Pullman area to demonstrate in Coeur d’Alene. 

“Elective abortion is not used in emergencies,” he said. “It’s something that dismembers, disembowels and decapitates a human being, so that’s why we’re against it.”

While biking downtown, Coeur d’Alene resident Dylan Drummond noticed the anti-abortion demonstration and decided to join the demonstrators, holding a sign that read, “Your Body, Your Choice.” 

Drummond said the red handprints on the sign are meant to illustrate the impact of Idaho’s abortion ban. Abortion should be accessible, Drummond said, and a lack of access puts lives and health at risk. 

“Abortion laws in Idaho are hurting women,” Drummond said. 

Idaho law bans abortion except when a physician determines it is necessary to “prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest that has been reported to law enforcement. The law carves out no exceptions for preserving a woman’s health and specifically bans physicians from providing abortions in cases where the patient is at risk for self-harm or suicide. 

The federal government has sued Idaho to allow abortions in emergencies where a woman’s health is at risk, arguing that the ban violates a federal law that requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat patients who come to emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay.

In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the Supreme Court remanded the case about emergency abortions in Idaho back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the time being. The decision reverses a January order from the Supreme Court that allowed Idaho’s abortion ban to take effect in emergencies.

Caiti Bobbitt, public affairs specialist for Kootenai Health, noted the Supreme Court’s decision does not change Idaho’s existing abortion ban, nor does it permanently resolve the lawsuit brought by the federal government. But, for now, the Supreme Court has cleared the way for physicians to provide abortions during medical emergencies.

“The recent Supreme Court ruling allows health care providers to perform abortions in emergency situations where the mother's health is at risk,” Bobbitt said Thursday. “Any pregnant patient that presents to the emergency department or our OB emergency department can receive stabilizing treatment, even if that means a termination of pregnancy in compliance with (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). This is to protect the health of the mother, and not just prevent her death.” 

Bobbitt said Kootenai Health is committed to providing “high-quality, safe and compassionate care” to all patients, including those seeking reproductive health services. 

“We are hopeful we can continue to have open and productive conversations with our state legislators to rectify the unintended consequences of the existing laws,” Bobbitt said. 

Dr. Duncan Harmon, one of only five maternal fetal medicine specialists in Idaho, said the Supreme Court decision provides some relief to emergency-room doctors who have been unable to provide necessary care to their patients. But he emphasized Idaho’s abortion ban remains vague and creates uncertainty about when a patient’s condition is dire enough for doctors to provide appropriate medical care without risking jail time or losing their license.

Harmon said Idaho law should empower doctors to preserve a woman’s health, not just her life.

“I’m simply trying to provide evidence-based medical care,” he said. “There are so many scenarios where women are not at death’s door. They’re not in the hospital.”

For example, Harmon said, some women who were born with certain congenital heart defects are at a high risk of developing heart failure or other serious health problems during pregnancy. 

In these situations, Harmon said, physicians can’t provide the medical care that would prevent a health emergency and patients must choose between seeking that care outside Idaho or waiting for their health to deteriorate. 

“Many of our patients have shared or opened up about their stories of trauma surrounding an awful situation of a wanted pregnancy in which they felt stuck between a rock and a hard place,” Harmon said.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said the ruling indicates his office won “significant concessions” from the U.S. government and he expects the Ninth Circuit’s decision to be “easy.” 

“I remain committed to protect unborn life and ensure women in Idaho receive necessary medical care, and I will continue my outreach to doctors and hospitals across Idaho to ensure that they understand what the law requires,” Labrador said Thursday.