[Source: Reuters]

The case is one of several around the United States over when abortion is legally available in medical emergencies under exceptions to state abortion bans.

Doctors have said that they are unable to perform abortions that they believe are medically necessary for fear of prosecution because it is not clear what is allowed, leaving pregnant women to travel to states with more permissive laws or wait as their medical conditions worsen.

But the Supreme Court did not address any of those issues, instead dismissing the case and sending it back to a lower court.

“The court has simply kicked the can down the road,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project.

Anti-abortion groups also expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not decide the issue in their favor.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a setback, but our fight for babies and moms continues,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America state policy director Katie Daniel said.

At issue in the case was whether Idaho’s abortion ban conflicts with a federal law requiring hospitals to stabilize patients with emergency medical conditions, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). President Joe Biden’s administration in 2022 issued guidance stating that EMTALA overrides any state abortion bans when they conflict.

The administration sued Idaho in August 2022, claiming that Idaho’s law ran afoul of EMTALA and asked a court to stop the state from enforcing it in medical emergencies.

It said EMTALA can require abortions that Idaho law prohibits because it requires doctors to consider the mother’s health, while Idaho allows abortion only to prevent her death.

A federal judge blocked the law, allowing emergency abortions to continue in the state. But the Supreme Court issued an emergency order allowing Idaho to enforce the ban again when it agreed to hear the state’s appeal in January.