WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Supreme Court formally released on Thursday a ruling that had been leaked the day before, confirming its decision to let the Biden administration continue to force Idaho to allow at least some abortions in emergency rooms. 

Idaho law allows abortion if a physician deems it “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman,” while requiring him to use a method that “provided the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in his good faith medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would have posed a greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman.” (All pro-life laws allow non-abortive life-saving care in medical emergencies, and medical experts attest that direct abortion is never medically necessary.)

In August 2022, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit arguing that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act (EMTALA) overrides Idaho’s pro-life laws and requires emergency room doctors to commit abortions that would otherwise be illegal under state law. A lower court sided with the White House, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case and allow Idaho to continue to enforce its pro-life laws until it is resolved.

In April, Idaho Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador, along with attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the law firm Cooper & Kirk, filed their reply brief with the nation’s highest court, laying out the case that the administration misreads and misapplies EMTALA in numerous ways, including that the law does not require procedures that violate state law, does not mandate services a particular hospital does not offer, and in fact requires hospitals to provide care for preborn children. Oral arguments were heard in the case, Moyle v. United States, later that month.

READ: Supreme Court hears arguments on whether Biden can force emergency rooms to commit abortions

On Wednesday, a draft of the Supreme Court’s Moyle decision was briefly posted on the Court’s website before being removed, indicating an unsigned and unelaborated 6-3 decision to dismiss the “improvidently granted” challenges and leave in place the lower ruling that the abortions be allowed to continue.

The next day, the Court officially released the final decision, which was substantially similar, “but without a few paragraphs from the earlier draft,” according to Fox News. 

Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett signed a concurring opinion written by Barrett that explained their decision to side with the Court’s liberals on the grounds that “the shape of these cases has substantially shifted” since the Court first granted them, between Idaho arguing its medical exception was “broader than the United States fears” and the White House narrowing its interpretation of EMTALA. So “even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho’s ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact,” eliminating the Court’s need to intervene, in her view.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, endorsed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, that strongly took issue with that reading of the situation.

“Recognizing the flaws in the Government’s theory and Idaho’s ‘strong’ likelihood of success, this Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal on January 5,” he wrote. “And, wisely or not, the Court also took the unusual step of granting certiorari before Idaho’s appeal was heard by the Ninth Circuit. Now the Court dismisses the writ and, what is worse, vacates the stay.”

“This about-face is baffling,” Alito continued. “Nothing legally relevant has occurred since January 5. And the underlying issue in this case — whether EMTALA requires hospitals to perform abortions in some circumstances — is a straightforward question of statutory interpretation. It is squarely presented by the decision below, and it has been exhaustively briefed and argued.”

“Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents,” he lamented. “That is regrettable.”

While the outcome represents a defeat for pro-lifers, it does not end the case or preclude the possibility of returning to the nation’s highest court on the merits. The Idaho Attorney General’s Office chose to focus on that silver lining in its response.

“The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 9th Circuit today after my office won significant concessions from the United States that Justice Barrett described as ‘important’ and ‘critical,’” Labrador said. “Today, the Court said that Idaho will be able to enforce its law to save lives in the vast majority of circumstances while the case proceeds. The Biden administration’s concession that EMTALA will rarely override Idaho’s law caused the Supreme Court to ask the 9th Circuit for review in light of the federal government’s change in position. Justice Barrett wrote, those concessions mean that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act ‘remains almost entirely intact.’  The 9th Circuit’s decision should be easy. As Justice Alito explained well: the Biden Administration’s ‘preemption theory is plainly unsound.’”

For conservatives, the outcome is the latest cause for concern about the current Supreme Court. Six of its nine members were appointed by Republican presidents, yet its decisions continue to be decidedly mixed.

The Court has delivered conservatives major victories on gun rights, environmental regulation, affirmative action, and most significantly, abortion, with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, but it has also issued dismissive rulings on COVID-19 shot mandates, religious freedom, and LGBT ideology, to the point that Alito has taken the rare step of criticizing Barrett and Kavanaugh for lacking the “fortitude” to resolve such issues.