Idaho abortion ban saves lives

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, returning the question of how to regulate abortion to the state level, 14 of those newly empowered states have essentially banned abortions, although with various exceptions.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court once again heard arguments about abortion, this time in a pair of consolidated cases driven by a question posed by the Biden administration: Does the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempt Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which bans abortions except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger?

At the root of that question is whether emergency rooms in Idaho can provide abortions if necessary for pregnant women facing a life-and-death emergency.

Proponents of Idaho’s law argue that it protects unborn babies and women by limiting abortions unless they’re necessary to save the mother’s life (and in cases of rape and incest). The state’s lawyers also say the law allows for care for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

Critics of the Idaho law, including Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued the Biden administration’s case before the court Wednesday, say it violates the federal statute because it denies women the right to emergency room care.

They point to cases in which women were airlifted out of state because doctors in Idaho believed they could not legally care for their patients.

One of the big issues at stake in this case involves the authority of states to make and enforce their own laws. Roe established a constitutional right to an abortion in 1973. States were largely restricted from regulating abortion for decades.

All that changed two years ago with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The ruling said states can set their own laws governing when and under what circumstances abortions are legal. Idaho did that.

And now the Biden administration, which never misses an opportunity to champion abortions, is making a weak argument against the Idaho law.

The federal statute on emergency care doesn’t say anything about abortion − this is simply the Biden administration’s very interpretative reading. The statute refers to stabilizing a woman’s health and that of “her unborn child.” Idaho argued that the federal law is silent on abortion care in emergency rooms.

At the core of this case is how to care for pregnant women who need immediate medical care or who are in such grave danger that the pregnancy poses a threat to their health or their lives.

It’s similar to a 2023 case that challenged Texas’ abortion ban. In that case, Kate Cox was pregnant with a baby who had severe health complications. Cox also was beginning to develop her own health risks and had been to the emergency room repeatedly. She petitioned for an abortion, was denied and left the state to receive one.

Such cases are undeniably difficult, even for people like me who value and support life, including the lives of unborn children.

Still, it’s important to note that only a small percentage of abortions are performed to protect the mother’s life or health. The vast majority of abortions are elective procedures.

The Idaho law may well need to be clarified more to ensure that doctors are confident they can act to protect women’s lives. Such clarifications of legislators’ work is not uncommon on the state or federal levels.

The goal of abortion bans is to preserve life. While the Biden administration clearly wants more abortions, states have a right to establish their own legal standards.

Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids.

Columnist USA TODAY