The Supreme Court is considering a case that could shape how hospitals in Republican-led states respond to life-threatening pregnancy complications. The case involves a challenge to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a Reagan-era law that requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide stabilizing treatment or safe transport to patients with medical emergencies, including abortion if necessary to save the patient’s life.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the women on the Supreme Court, including conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, had tough questions for Idaho Solicitor General Joshua Turner, who refused to specify what medical conditions qualify for emergency abortions under the state’s near-total abortion ban.
Justice Barrett said she was “shocked” by Turner’s position, noting that the state’s own expert had testified that such cases would be covered under EMTALA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read out a list of documented cases where women in states with abortion bans were denied abortions for major health emergencies and asked if they would have been denied care under the Idaho law.
Justice Elena Kagan questioned why a woman would have to be at “death’s door” to receive an emergency abortion under EMTALA. Turner responded that this was a matter of “prosecutorial discretion.”
The men on the court, who make up much of the conservative bloc, were more inquisitive with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on behalf of the Biden Administration. Justice Samuel Alito questioned the law’s reference to “the woman’s quote-unquote unborn child,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns about EMTALA’s definition of “individual” to include both the woman and the unborn child.
A ruling in the case is expected by the end of the Supreme Court term in June.
