Supreme Court justices push back most strongly on Idaho abortion ban

A divided Supreme Court appeared skeptical that Idaho’s strict abortion ban would conflict with a federal emergency care law, but there appeared to be a divide by gender as well as ideology during the nearly two hours of discussion.

The four justices, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, were the most reacting to Idaho’s claim that its law, which prohibits doctors from performing abortions except when a woman’s life is in danger, supersedes federal law on EMTALA emergency care.

Doctors face up to five years in prison for violating Idaho law.

The liberal justices, in particular, asked detailed questions about what would constitute a medical emergency, focusing on complications that would rob a woman of her reproductive organs or put her at risk for sepsis.

The case centers on a federal law known as EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients, regardless of their ability to pay.

The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is prohibited, EMTALA states that hospitals should be authorized to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.

Barrett asked Idaho attorney Joshua Turner pointed questions about how much discretion doctors actually have in making decisions in medical emergencies that may not be life-threatening.

Turner argued that laws allow decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, but Barrett criticized that argument and accused Turner of “hedging.”

Barrett’s questioning does not always give an indication of how she will vote, and the three liberal justices need at least two conservatives to side with them for the Biden administration to win the case.

UNDER DEVELOPMENT