Both legal and medical experts slammed US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's dissent in a 6-3 decision allowing "Idaho doctors discretion to perform emergency abortions while the current law says it is only permissible to save the life of a pregnant patient," according to PBS.
American University Washington College of Law professor Maya Manian told Salon Thursday, "Alito’s dissent represented a 'complete disparagement of concern for women’s health, for pregnant patients’ health.'"
Similarly, in a Thursday, June 27 op-ed published by Slate, Dr. Dara Kass, an emergency medicine physician, asserts that the justices' references in his dissent are "medically inaccurate and completely infuriating cases."
READ MORE: Alito’s latest Supreme Court dissent 'written from another planet': ex-prosecutor
The right-wing justice "repeatedly declares that the obligation on hospitals is to protect both the mother and the unborn as if a physician is often looking for an emergency situation to serve as an excuse to sacrifice a healthy pregnancy as a cavalier treatment for the betterment of the mother’s life," Kass writes.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion, the New-York based doctor notes, reads: "Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho, it is a delay. 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."
Unlike Alito, "Jackson really does seem to get us doctors and what we need to do to care for our patients," Kass emphasizes.
"You know who doesn’t have a clue about what we do? Justice Samuel Alito, the proud author of the majority opinion in Dobbs and now the scribe of the dissent here in Moyle," the emergency medicine emphasizes.
READ MORE: 'Recklessness' of SCOTUS conservatives may result in 'collapse' of Court: ex-prosecutor
Kass notes:
Throughout his dissent Alito uses inflammatory language like 'abortion on demand' to describe circumstances where patients and their providers may jointly decide to terminate a pregnancy in the course of emergency medical care. He even says, 'Government lawyers hit upon the novel argument that, under EMTALA … hospitals … must perform abortions on request when the ‘health’ of a pregnant woman is in serious jeopardy.' Why put the word health in quotes? Could Alito articulate the line he would draw, in his medical expertise, that would prohibit the termination of a pregnancy that would otherwise be protected by EMTALA, because a patient is sick, but just not sick enough to satisfy the Alito 'is she really gonna die' standard?
The New York-based doctor adds:
Among the most egregious assertions that Alito makes during his dissent are the medically fantastical situations he describes that somehow pit the survivability of the unborn with the EMTALA protected care of the mother. For example, Alito continues to perseverate over the mental health protections of EMTALA—which never have, and never will, apply to the provision of abortion services in emergency departments.
Kass concludes that the conservative justice’s dissent full of "medical misrepresentation and conjecture" appears "to be seeking to cast the blueprint for an eventual decision that will allow states like Idaho to carve out abortion services from their treatment options for seriously ill patients presenting to emergency departments," but "that doesn’t matter" to him.
READ MORE: Alito absent during 'second day in a row' of bombshell SCOTUS rulings
Dr. Kass' full op-ed is available at this link.
