US Supreme Court’s decision on Idaho case helps ensure emergency abortion care in Florida

The US Supreme Court Thursday upheld a federal law that could have had a wide-reaching effect on emergency abortion care, including in Florida where a six-week ban is in effect.

The high court’s Thursday ruling requires Idaho, which has an abortion ban in place, to follow the federal law requiring hospitals that receive federal funds to allow emergency abortion care to stabilize patients suffering from pregnancy complications. The Biden administration had sued Idaho saying the state’s strict abortion ban conflicts with federal law.

Emergency physicians in Florida had been watching for the high court’s decision, concerned over what ermergency care they can provide a pregnant woman with Florida’s six-week abortion ban in effect since May 1. There have been reports that women in Idaho who needed emergency abortions had to be airlifted to other states to avoid health risks.

“What is going on now in Idaho could easily happen in Florida,” said Dr. Leonardo Alonso, an emergency medicine specialist in Jacksonville who expressed concern over any threat to the nearly 40-year-old federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).

The Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho for now in a limited ruling

Nearly 6,000 doctors from 50 states with the Committee to Protect Health Care released a letter asking the Supreme Court to uphold the federal protections nationwide.

In Thursday’s ruling, the Court dismissed the case against Idaho on procedural grounds. Its ruling does not settle the question of whether federal law preempts strict state abortion bans in any state, including Florida.

Most emergency doctors now practicing in Florida have done so only while the Emergency Medical Treatment Act has been the guiding law, said Dr. Damian Caraballo, a Tampa emergency physician and past Florida College of Emergency Physicians president. “Most doctors want to do whatever it takes to save a mother’s life,” Caraballo said.

In response to the ruling, Democratic Florida Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson issued a written statment expressing relief.

“We can’t go back to the days before Roe v. Wade and today, we saw a win for all people across the nation,” she said. “The Supreme Court made the right decision in ensuring people can access lifesaving abortion care and maintain autonomy over their bodies and reproductive health, free from interference by out-of-touch MAGA Republicans. But let’s be clear, while this decision was a temporary win, it was also the bare minimum.”

Wilson said she personally experienced a scenario before Roe v. Wade, the federal law that made abortion legal, where she needed emergency abortion care for a stillbirth but could not receive it. “Folks today should not have to experience what I did,” she said.

Dr. Shavonne Ramsey-Coleman, market medical director for OB Hospitalist Group, said with Florida’s six-week ban, obstetricians who work at hospitals already are grappling with gray areas when pregnant women need emergency care. “Each hospital has a legal team, and we take it to them and the ethics committee to help us suss it out,” she said. “Every hospital is a little bit different in how they are handling it.”

Danielle White, general counsel for Heartbeat International, issued a statement after Thursday’s court ruling, suggesting the issue of emergency abortion care has not been settled. “Today’s decision leaves us with more questions than answers. The Court did not settle the question of whether states are required to adopt a broad and sweeping view of EMTALA that leaves them effectively powerless to protect mothers and their unborn children from elective abortion — a question which may very well come back to the Court at another time.”

Sun Sentinel health reporter Cindy Goodman can be reached at cgoodman@sunsentinel.com.

This is a developing story, so check back for updates. Click here to have breaking news alerts sent directly to your inbox.