In a scathing dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says Idaho abortion ruling is 'not a victory for pregnant patients'

Thu, June 27, 2024 at 3:15 PM EDT

“WASHINGTON — 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 said 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.”

A Biden campaign adviser later Thursday warned that "women’s health, lives, and freedoms remain in peril across the country because of Donald Trump."

Women are being turned away at emergency rooms, the adviser continued, because "Trump’s Supreme Court majority overturned Roe v. Wade" in 2022. The White House said this 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 said.

The Supreme Court decided that it would dismiss the appeal brought by Idaho officials and, as a result, a lower court's ruling will remain in effect for now, which allows doctors in Idaho to perform abortions in emergency situations.

The decision, which leaves the legal question unresolved and has no impact in any other state, was widely expected after the Supreme Court on Wednesday inadvertently posted a copy online.

The court’s decision to not rule on the substance of the case means confusion remains on whether the federal law trumps the state bans.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com”