The U.S. Supreme Court heard its first test on Wednesday of state abortion bans that have been enacted since the court upended the Roe v. Wade constitutional right to abortion. While the current case involves an Idaho abortion ban, the court’s ruling could have implications beyond that state.
Idaho lawmakers have banned abortion except when a mother’s life is at risk. The Biden administration says the state law conflicts with a federal law requiring emergency room doctors to stabilize patients, no matter what, even if that means an abortion. How the court will rule is uncertain. The justices could make a major ruling — or they could rule narrowly on how Idaho’s state law interacts with the federal law, the the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
Attorneys for both sides warned that the justices’ ruling could affect women and doctors far beyond Idaho, changing how emergency rooms treat patients in many other states. There are 22 states with abortion laws on the books, said Attorney Joshua N. Turner, who represented Idaho.
Medical what-ifs peppered the arguments, sometimes turning personal: What if a woman’s water breaks early in her pregnancy, exposing her to serious infection risk at a point when the fetus can’t survive outside the womb? What if continuing the pregnancy would subject a pregnant person to organ failure, or cause permanent infertility?
Idaho’s argument that emergency rooms could be forced to provide abortions if a pregnant patient in mental distress demanded one raised concerns among the justices. The state hasn’t provided an actual example of a doctor being in this position.
The outcome likely turns on the votes of the other three members of the court — Chief Justice, John Roberts and Barrett and Kavanaugh. Six conservative justices all have cast votes to limit abortion access, including five who voted less than two years ago to overturn Roe v. Wade.
