On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that examines whether a 1986 federal law holds preeminent power over Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. The Idaho statute in question makes it illegal to perform or attempt to perform an abortion unless refraining would lead to a mother’s death. This case represents an appeal of a Ninth Circuit decision that earlier halted the enforcement of Idaho’s ban.
The Biden administration’s main argument centers on the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), suggesting it preempts the Idaho law. Attorneys on both sides made their case, with Joshua Turner arguing for the petitioners, emphasizing the role of states in regulating doctors’ professional practices.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson engaged Turner on the dimensions of EMTALA, delving into the dictate it provides to hospitals. Faced with demanding questions from Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Turner outlined how the Idaho legislation applies in emergency circumstances. Suggesting that Idaho cannot criminalize medical care mandated under EMTALA, the Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, represented the US.
The Justices’ queries ranged from aspects of the standard EMTALA sets for medical care to its implications based on the pregnancy’s stage and the reach of Congress’s spending power. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether EMTALA would require hospitals with religious affiliations to perform abortions.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released their statement urging the Supreme Court not to weaken EMTALA’s protections for emergency abortion care. As the controversy around abortion continues to smolder in the US, other states are closely watching this landmark case. The ACLU points out that the court’s ruling could have implications beyond Idaho given the rise in restrictive abortion laws across the country.
Recently, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, essentially delegating the issue to state-level decisions. The ruling paved the way for states to either completely ban or impose gestational limits on abortions.
Earlier this month, Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled a 159-year-old law prohibiting abortion as enforceable, which led to dissension among the state’s representatives. The House erupted into chants of “shame” when Republican members voted to adjourn, side-stepping any discussion on repealing the state’s 1864 abortion ban.