In a scathing dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned Thursday that the Supreme Court’s Idaho abortion decision is “not a victory for pregnant patients,” even though it allows emergency abortions for now.
“It is delay,” she wrote in her dissent, which she read from the bench. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Jackson emphasized that the court had the opportunity “to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it.”
“And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price,” she continued. “Because we owe them — and the nation — an answer to the straightforward pre-emption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent.”
Later on Thursday, a Biden campaign adviser highlighted the broader implications of the decision, warning that “women’s health, lives, and freedoms remain in peril across the country because of Donald Trump.”
The adviser noted that women are being turned away at emergency rooms because “Trump’s Supreme Court majority overturned Roe v. Wade” in 2022. The White House stated that this situation has forced pregnant patients to “the brink of death before receiving the care they need.”
“If Trump returns to the White House, he and his allies will ban abortion in all 50 states — without the help of Congress or the courts — putting even more women’s lives at risk,” the campaign adviser added.
The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeal brought by Idaho officials. As a result, a lower court’s ruling will remain in effect for now, allowing doctors in Idaho to perform abortions in emergency situations.
This decision, which leaves the legal question unresolved and has no impact on other states, was widely expected after the Supreme Court inadvertently posted a copy online on Wednesday.
The court’s decision not to rule on the substance of the case means that confusion remains regarding whether federal law overrides state bans.
Justice Jackson’s dissent underscores the urgency and complexity of the abortion debate in the United States. Her pointed critique reflects a deep concern for the ongoing uncertainty faced by pregnant patients and their healthcare providers, as well as the potential consequences of further political shifts in the nation’s leadership.