The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Thursday allowing emergency care for pregnant women with health problems offers only minor and temporary relief to doctors and their pregnant patients in Idaho.

Ultimately, the justices sent the question of whether Idaho's abortion ban violates the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act back to the lower courts for further proceedings. It could be months or even years before the courts make a final decision.

In the meantime, doctors and patients must wait and see whether another court ruling suddenly means they must leave the country for medical treatment, be flown by helicopter to another state in an emergency, or remain in Idaho despite a nonviable pregnancy that threatens their health or ability to have children in the future.

“This decision to send the case back to the lower courts provides welcome immediate relief to women and their physicians in Idaho,” said Susie Keller, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association, during a press conference Thursday after the ruling was released. “But given the many uncertainties that remain in Idaho's law, much work remains to be done to provide the clarity and certainty needed to protect the health of pregnant women and allow physicians to continue practicing in Idaho.”

The real and lasting solution is legislative action. At the very least, lawmakers should create a clear exception in their next session to protect a pregnant woman's health, not just her life.

“We believe this is a significant step forward in ensuring our hospitals and physicians can provide critical care without government interference, ultimately improving health care for pregnant women in the state,” said Greg Morrison of the Idaho Hospital Association during a press conference Thursday. “However, Idaho's abortion law still needs further clarification to protect the health and well-being of Idaho women outside of an emergency room or urgent care department.”

Since a near-total ban on abortion went into effect in Idaho, hospitals and doctors have feared criminal prosecution for providing necessary medical care.

According to the Idaho Medical Association, the state has lost about 22% of its practicing gynecologists since the law went into effect. This exodus of specialists is endangering the health of Idaho women, especially in rural areas where there is already a shortage of doctors. And the chilling effect of possible felony charges has made Idaho deeply unattractive for recruiting new gynecologists.

Unfortunately, Idaho's Republican lawmakers and politicians have not listened.

Keller said her organization has spent the past two years trying to work with lawmakers to allow an exception based on the mother's health condition.

According to a draft bill obtained by the Idaho Statesman, an abortion ban would not apply to “treatment of a woman whose pregnancy or other medical condition, in the good faith clinical judgment of her physician, renders her medical condition so complicated that termination of the pregnancy is necessary to treat her and prevent a serious risk of substantial impairment of an important bodily function or serious dysfunction of an organ or body part; provided, however, that termination of the pregnancy is not deemed necessary because the physician believes that the woman may or will take actions harmful to herself.”

Concerns that such an exception would create a “loophole” for elective abortion are unfounded. Other states – including our conservative neighbor Utah – have successfully introduced health-related exceptions without jeopardizing their draconian abortion restrictions.

Utah state law allows abortion as early as 18 weeks of pregnancy to prevent “a serious physical risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the woman during which the abortion is performed.”

Idaho can do the same while providing important protections to women with high-risk pregnancies.

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador downplayed the medical community's concerns and took a relaxed approach to the state's doctor problem, saying doctors are afraid of “left-leaning, pro-abortion lawyers” who confuse them, according to a Statesman article Thursday.

“If a doctor believes in good faith that the woman's life is in danger … he may terminate the pregnancy,” he said, even if the danger is not imminent.

But this is a huge misunderstanding of the situation, which perhaps explains why Labrador's team failed to convince the heavily-voted Supreme Court in what should have been a no-brainer.

The fact that the justices were confused about how to apply Idaho's abortion ban is clear evidence that this law is indeed poorly drafted and confusing.

And when a doctor is threatened with arrest and jail, the chilling effect is obvious, something Labrador apparently doesn't understand very well.

“I just want to say that the attorney general's comments, from what I've seen and read, focus on the life of the mother, and that's true, and the law is clear about preserving the life of the mother,” Keller said. “But what this whole case is about, and what our doctors and our patients are very concerned about, are situations where a pregnant woman's health is in danger when she's about to lose her fertility or a major bodily function. And that's not clear in the law. So that's exactly the clarity we're seeking.”

During this year's primaries, several Republican lawmakers and candidates told the Idaho Statesman editorial board that they favored exceptions to Idaho's abortion ban to allow abortions even when the mother's health is at risk – not just when her death is imminent.

So make it clear, GOP lawmakers: Either you want exceptions when the mother's health is at stake, or you want to continue to ban abortions in cases of non-urgent health threats or non-viable pregnancies.

Whatever the case, write it into the law and make it clear.

The courts can then make a clear decision as to whether Idaho's law violates federal law.

The Statesman's editorials are the unsigned opinions of the Idaho Statesman editorial board. The editorial board includes opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, staff writer Chadd Cripe, editorial writers Dana Oland and Jim Keyser, and community members Greg Lanting, Terri Schorzman and Garry Wenske.