The United States Supreme Court today reinstated a lower court order allowing Idaho healthcare providers to provide emergency abortions to protect the health of pregnant people. In its 6-3 opinion, the court declared the case was “improvidently granted,” meaning it did not rule on the central question in the case. The court instead sent the case back to a lower court for adjudication — and a potential return to the Supreme Court. The court was previously set to decide whether a federal law (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) protecting medical care in emergency situations supersedes the state of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, which prohibited abortions unless a physician could prove the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant person.   An amicus brief in the case submitted by the Global Justice Center, as part of a coalition of human rights organizations, argued that Idaho’s abortion law violates the human rights of pregnant people in Idaho, which are protected by human rights treaties that the US has ratified. Jaime Gher, senior legal advisor at the Global Justice Center, issued the following statement: “Today’s decision offers temporary relief for pregnant people living under Idaho’s extreme abortion ban, as many facing medical emergencies may now be able to receive the abortion care they need. However, we should be clear that this ruling does not confirm that EMTALA guarantees pregnant persons’ access to emergency care. Rather, it leaves the question open, forcing the people of Idaho to continue living with their human right to reproductive healthcare under constant threat. “Abortion is a human right. Time and time again, international human rights bodies have made it clear that all abortion bans are incompatible with the human rights to health, life, freedom from torture, non-discrimination, and more. Today’s decision does not alter this fundamental fact. “We must continue to demand that abortion laws across the United States meet international human rights standards. It’s only through robust, equal, and effective access to abortion that we can truly safeguard our health and lives.”

The Global Justice Center, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Ipas — in partnership with Foley Hoag LLP — today filed an amicus brief in Idaho vs. United States, the United States Supreme Court case considering the enforcement of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. The brief argues that Idaho’s abortion law violates the human rights of pregnant Idahoans. Citing human rights treaties that the US has ratified, including those covering civil and political rights, freedom from torture, and racial discrimination, it describes how Idaho’s abortion law violates the United States’ legal obligations to provide safe and legal abortion services. In particular, the brief cites human rights obligations during emergencies governed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. “Nothing less than the fundamental human rights of the people of Idaho are at stake in this case,” said Grant Shubin, Senior Legal Advisor at the Global Justice Center. “This abortion ban is a blatant violation of the rights to life, health, non-discrimination, freedom from torture, and privacy. And the violations are far from theoretical — day after day, pregnant people in Idaho are facing life-threatening cruelties while their doctors operate under fear of prosecution.” The brief also argues that Idaho’s abortion law will endanger the lives, health, and well-being of pregnant Idahoans — especially those from marginalized communities. It cites evidence from other US states and countries with similar abortion restrictions showing that such laws exacerbate preventable maternal mortality and morbidity, despite any narrow exception for life-saving care.  Risks to the health of pregnant people in Idaho in emergency situations have already been documented. In one case, a physician described having to send a pregnant patient home while experiencing a miscarriage because, without absolute certainty regarding the pregnancy outcome, the physician feared that Idaho’s abortion law prevented them from providing immediate care to manage the miscarriage in the emergency department. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Idaho vs. United States next month.

More than 300 civil society groups and individuals today issued a joint statement urging United Nations member states to declare support for moving the Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity into treaty negotiations. Human rights organizations based in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Americas, and Europe — as well as leading international law and human rights experts — are among the signatories. Beginning Monday, April 1, the UN’s Sixth Committee will resume its session to address crimes against humanity, where member states will have the opportunity to demonstrate support for treaty negotiations. Although crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in international law, there has yet to be a treaty regulating their prevention and punishment. The Draft Articles are the result of six years of work in the International Law Commission, an independent body of experts established by the UN General Assembly that is responsible for helping develop and codify international law. Civil society organizations and international law experts believe that the current draft is a strong starting point for negotiations. They have also recommended several areas where the Draft Articles should be improved. Ahead of a Sixth Committee debate on the treaty in October 2023, the Global Justice Center issued a series of legal briefs with recommendations to ensure the treaty is gender-competent and survivor-centric. A full list of signatories can be found here. Elise Keppler, Executive Director at the Global Justice Center, issued the following statement: “Activists from every corner of the globe have united to deliver the message that the world needs a treaty on crimes against humanity. Governments should step up and signal that they support moving to treaty negotiations. From Afghanistan to Myanmar, crimes against humanity are rampant, and more tools to combat these crimes are needed. A strong, gender-competent, and survivor-centric treaty is not only possible — it is necessary.”