Supreme Court justices raised questions Wednesday about whether state bans on abortions during medical emergencies conflict with federal healthcare law after the sweeping ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
Quick Read
- Supreme Court Scrutiny on Abortion Bans: The Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether state abortion bans during medical emergencies conflict with federal healthcare law, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
- Idaho’s Abortion Law in Question: The case originated from Idaho, one of 14 states with stringent abortion bans, even in stages where the woman’s health is severely at risk but not immediately life-threatening.
- Justice Concerns: Liberal justices, especially Justice Elena Kagan, expressed concerns about the risks to women’s health under Idaho’s law, including potential loss of reproductive capabilities without the option for an abortion.
- Federal vs. State Healthcare Laws: The Biden administration contends that federal law mandates hospitals to perform abortions when a patient’s health is in serious danger, opposing state laws like Idaho’s, which restrict such actions.
- State Defense: Idaho defends its stringent measures, arguing that its law includes exceptions for life-saving abortions and that broader allowances could transform hospitals into “abortion enclaves.”
- Impact on Emergency Care: There has been an increase in reports of pregnant women being denied necessary care in emergencies, with some needing to travel out of state for abortions due to the restrictive state laws.
- Public and Professional Reaction: Outside the court, groups demonstrated both for and against the restrictions, while medical professionals noted the law’s negative impact on emergency healthcare for women.
- Related Cases and Decisions: This session also includes another significant abortion-related case regarding access to abortion medication, with the justices appearing skeptical of further restrictions.
- Legal and Medical Precedents: The debate centers on the compatibility of state abortion bans with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which mandates emergency care for all, highlighting a clash between state-imposed restrictions and federal emergency healthcare obligations.
- Anticipated Ruling: A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June, which will clarify the extent to which federal law may preempt state abortion restrictions in medical emergencies.
The Associated Press has the story:
Supreme Court is hearing case about emergency abortion care
Newslooks- WASHINGTON (AP) —
Supreme Court justices raised questions Wednesday about whether state bans on abortions during medical emergencies conflict with federal healthcare law after the sweeping ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered a state ban since the nationwide right to abortion was overturned. It comes from Idaho, which is among 14 states that now ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions.
Justices on the high court’s liberal minority raised sharp questions about whether Idaho’s law is putting women’s health at risk.
“Within these rare cases, there’s a significant number where the woman’s life is not in peril, but she’s going to lose her reproductive organs. She’s going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place,” said Justice Elena Kagan.
With liberal justices in the minority, though, two conservative justices would also have to join them, and it wasn’t immediately clear whether any members of the majority were swayed.
The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, federal health care law says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.
Idaho contends its ban has exceptions for life-saving abortions but allowing it in more medical emergencies would turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves.” The state argues the Biden administration is misusing a health care law that is meant to ensure patients aren’t turned away based on their ability to pay.
The Supreme Court has allowed the Idaho law to go into effect, even during emergencies, as the case played out.
Dueling protests were taking shape outside the court before the start of arguments on Wednesday. “Abortion saves lives,” read signs displayed by abortion rights supporters. Opponents displayed a sign that read, “Emergency rooms are not abortion clinics.”
Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide abortions within the bounds of state law.
Meanwhile, complaints of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Anti-abortion groups blame doctors for mishandling maternal emergency cases. Idaho argues the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.
The justices also heard another abortion case this term seeking to restrict access to abortion medication. It remains pending, though the justices overall seemed skeptical of the push.
The Justice Department originally brought the case against Idaho, arguing the state’s abortion law conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA. It requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide emergency care to any patient regardless of their ability to pay. Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare.
A federal judge initially sided with the administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.
