We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:


Latest News

Supreme Court Opinion on Idaho Abortion Law Briefly Leaks on Website

 June 27, 2024

The U.S. Supreme Court inadvertently leaked a significant opinion hinting it may partially overturn Idaho's strict abortion ban to permit emergency abortions for women's health.

The leaked document from the high court indicates a 6-3 ruling favoring the federal appeals court's decision, reflecting the conservative justices' cautious support for Idaho’s current position, as the BBC reports.

Leaked Opinion Suggests New Direction

The Supreme Court of the United States mistakenly published a major opinion on abortion rights on its website on Wednesday. Bloomberg initially obtained the document, which was removed shortly after its accidental release. The opinion indicates the court's readiness to overturn part of Idaho's near-total abortion ban.

This potential ruling would prevent Idaho from denying emergency abortions to women whose health is in jeopardy. The final decision, however, has not yet been announced but is expected soon. The premature publication of the opinion arrives two years after the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which established a national right to abortion, was overturned.

Idaho's Stringent Abortion Restrictions

Following the reversal of Roe v. Wade, states like Idaho introduced stringent abortion restrictions, resulting in a varied landscape of abortion laws across the country. Idaho’s current law prohibits abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with very limited exceptions only to save the patient's life.

Despite these restrictions, Idaho contends that its law aligns with federal regulations and does not necessitate expanding exceptions. However, the Supreme Court's leaked opinion suggested that this case should not have been expedited.

Conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, and Brett Kavanaugh articulated that Supreme Court involvement at this juncture was premature. They indicated a preference for the case to proceed through the federal appeals court system before the high court made a definitive ruling.

Contrasting Opinions Among Justices

The court appeared to lean towards reinstating an order permitting emergency abortions in Idaho while the case was under federal appeals court review. This has led to cautious optimism among pro-abortion groups who hope for enhanced access to emergency abortion care.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson critiqued the decision to defer the ruling to another court. She emphasized the importance of a clear ruling over temporary measures, asserting, "Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay."

Jackson also expressed concerns about the interim period for pregnant individuals, stating, "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."

Optimism From Pro-Abortion Groups

The Pro-Choice Caucus of the U.S. Congress expressed hope that this development marks a step forward for patients' access to emergency abortion services. They stated, "With lives hanging in the balance, we hope this indicates a step forward for patients' access to emergency abortion care." The organization further added, "Now, it is up to Scotus [the Supreme Court] to confirm that this is true and they will indeed protect that right and uphold federal law."

Planned Parenthood's Alexis McGill Johnson stressed what she viewed as the crucial need for guaranteed emergency abortion care, asserting, "Any decision that falls short of guaranteeing patients' access to abortion care in emergencies would be catastrophic."

Federal and State Legal Tensions

The Biden administration had previously sued Idaho in 2022 over its near-total abortion ban. The administration's position is that women should not be required to be near death before receiving medical care, a stance echoed by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who stated, "Women should not have to be near death to get care."

Conversely, anti-abortion advocacy groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America criticized the lawsuit. Kelsey Pritchard of the organization argued that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) does not override state laws.

Pritchard emphasized, "The EMTALA case is based on the false premise that pregnant women cannot receive emergency care under pro-life laws." She added, "It is a clear fact that pregnant women can receive miscarriage care, ectopic pregnancy care, and treatment in a medical emergency in all 50 states."

Impact on Medical Emergencies

Reports have highlighted serious consequences stemming from Idaho's current law. Since the law took effect in January, at least six pregnant women were airlifted out of Idaho for emergency medical situations, compared to only one case in the previous year.

This harsh reality for Idaho residents underscores the urgent need for clarity about the legality of emergency abortions. In a related context, the Supreme Court recently rejected efforts to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a decision celebrated by pro-choice advocates.


The accidental leak of a major Supreme Court opinion suggests an impending shift in Idaho's strict abortion laws, potentially allowing emergency abortions to protect women's health.

Conflicting perspectives within the court highlight ongoing tensions in the nation's abortion debate, as federal and state laws clash over women's healthcare.

The final ruling remains pending, while stakeholders on all sides anticipate significant implications for access to emergency abortion services.