Divided Supreme Court Justices Spar With Both Sides Over Emergency Abortion
Arguments were heard on conflicts between the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, and Idaho's near-total abortion ban. The female Supreme Court justices strongly questioned the Idaho law, while the more conservative members of the bench floated three ways they could justify siding with Idaho over the Biden administration.
Politico:
Supreme Court Wrestles With The Fallout Of Dobbs In Arguments On Emergency Abortions
The Supreme Court heard nearly two hours of heated arguments Wednesday on the tension between Idaho’s near-total abortion ban and a federal law requiring hospitals to offer any treatment — including an abortion — needed to stabilize patients in an emergency. A few conservative justices at times joined the court’s liberal wing Wednesday in asking tough questions that picked apart Idaho’s argument that its hospitals should not be bound to provide abortions under the federal law at issue, known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA. But it was far from clear whether those conservatives — most notably Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — were prepared to vote with the three liberals against Idaho. (Ollstein and Gerstein, 4/24)
The Hill:
Female Supreme Court Justices Push Back Most Strongly On Idaho Abortion Ban
The four female justices, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, pushed back the hardest against Idaho’s assertion that its law, which prohibits doctors from performing an abortion except when a woman’s life is in danger, supersedes the federal emergency care statute known as EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. (Weixel, 4/24)
Vox:
The Supreme Court Wants To Make It More Dangerous To Be Pregnant In A Red State, In Moyle V. United States
Members of the Court’s Republican majority proposed three possible ways they could try to justify a decision permitting Idaho to ban many medically necessary abortions. The weakest of these three arguments was proposed by Justice Samuel Alito, author of the Court’s 2022 decision eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion. Alito pointed to a provision of EMTALA that requires hospitals to also offer stabilizing care to a pregnant patient’s “unborn child” if a medical emergency threatens the fetus’s life, though Alito did not really make a legal argument. He just expressed indignation at the very idea that a statute that uses the words “unborn child” could possibly require abortions in any circumstances. (Millhiser, 4/24)
CNN:
Takeaways From The Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments Over Emergency Abortions
To prevail, the Biden administration will need the votes of two members of the court’s conservative bloc, and with Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaling sympathies toward Idaho, the case will likely come down to the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. The two justices had tough questions for both sides of the case. Here are the key takeaways from oral arguments. (Sneed and Fritze, 4/24)
Idaho Statesman:
Idaho Abortion Law: How Did We Get Here?
Since Idaho’s strict abortion laws went into effect following the court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, they have faced numerous legal challenges. Several have been elevated to the Idaho Supreme Court, and others have risen to the U.S. District Court or 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (Blanchard, 4/24)
Also —
NBC News:
Mother Describes Leaving Idaho For Abortion As Supreme Court Considers State's Ban
It was the news that every expectant mother dreads. Twelve weeks pregnant with her second child, Jennifer Adkins learned her developing fetus had Turner syndrome, a rare chromosomal abnormality, and was unlikely to survive. On top of that, doctors warned that her own health could be in jeopardy. (Gallagher and Jarrett, 4/24)
