Supreme Court weighs Idaho law regulating abortion in medical emergencies

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday on how doctors may legally perform abortions for medical emergencies in states with laws that protect unborn babies.

Case summary: The Biden administration sued Idaho in 2022, alleging federal health laws require doctors to ignore the state’s protections against abortion if a patient’s life is at risk. However, the state has argued its law protecting the unborn does allow abortions when the mother’s life is at risk. The Department of Justice is misusing the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act to improperly broaden the definition of emergency to expand abortion allowances and engrain hospitals as abortion enclaves, Idaho has argued. Texas sued the federal government over the same issue in 2022, but only the Idaho case is being argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The law known as EMTALA requires emergency rooms with Medicare funding to perform stabilizing medical treatments for patients having a medical emergency. Because federal statutes supersede state laws, the government argues Idaho hospitals should be required to perform abortions if it is determined that they would stabilize an emergency situation.

How did the hearing go? The Idaho attorney general’s chief of constitutional litigation and policy, Joshua Turner, argued that state law already allows abortions for women whose lives are at risk. Turner noted that state law also considers what’s best for both mother and child during medical emergencies. However, questions from justices began differentiating between health risks and life risks. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that EMTALA allowed women to receive an abortion if they risked serious injury or loss of organ function, but not immediate death. Turner said state law would not necessarily allow abortion in such a situation but added doctors use good faith judgments when deciding emergency abortions. Regardless, doctors are still subject to prosecutorial discretion and may face state charges for the procedure, Turner noted.

Elizabeth Prelogar represented the Biden administration, alleging that current Idaho law forces women’s conditions to deteriorate before they may receive treatment. The federal law would allow a pregnant woman developing liver failure to avoid waiting for a fatal diagnosis before terminating the pregnancy, Prelogar argued. Practitioners with conscience exceptions to performing abortions are also allowed under EMTALA, she added.

The court adjourned after nearly two hours of arguments. It is unknown when the high court will issue a ruling on the case.

Dig deeper: Read my report with Mary Jackson in WORLD Magazine on Arizona’s controversial law protecting against abortion.