Justice Alito says allowing abortions in medical emergencies is ‘bizarre’ as he fights for rights of ‘unborn child’

Justice Samuel Alito emphatically dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision to allow hospitals in Idaho to perform emergency abortions – claiming doctors must protect an “unborn child” under a federal law.

In a 6-3 decision on Thursday, justices declined to issue a firm ruling in the consolidated cases Moyle v US and Idaho v US which asked whether or not hospital emergency rooms that participate in Medicare could deny administering an abortion in medical emergencies.

The ruling means that emergency abortions can continue – but the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to bring similar challenges.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, called the decision “baffling” claiming the federal law that gives emergency rooms funding doesn’t permit abortions – it does the opposite in demanding hospitals protect the health of a pregnant person and the unborn child.

“It goes without saying that aborting an “unborn child” does not protect it from jeopardy,” Justice Alito wrote.

Justice Alito, who authored Dobbs v. Jackson, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, criticized the other justices for permitting the decision believing the state law did not conflict with federal mandates under the  Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

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

The case comes out of Idaho, which enacted a strict abortion ban in 2022 that imposes criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions but includes a narrow and vague exception to protect the life of a pregnant person.

That exception says a physician must use “good faith medical