Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday that state abortion bans that took effect after the sweeping ruling overturning Roe v. Wade violate federal health care law, even during some medical emergencies.
The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered the implications of 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 very limited exceptions.
While members of the high court’s conservative majority expressed concern about pregnant patients’ ability to get emergency care in the state, it was unclear whether any were swayed by the Biden administration’s argument.
The Justice Department says abortion care must be allowed in emergencies that seriously threaten a woman’s health under a federal health care law that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide emergency care regardless of patients’ ability to pay.
“How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize, simply because hospitals in Idaho have chosen to participate in Medicare?” said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Justices on the high court’s liberal minority, meanwhile, raised sharp questions about whether Idaho’s law was 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.
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 abortion 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 has played out. It makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
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.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Alito is a Nazi.
Yes, a Supreme Court Justice in 2024 that disagrees with your opinion on abortion is exactly like a group that facilitated genocide in the millions and inflicted actual tyranny you couldn’t begin to comprehend.
IBJ, you need to hire Michael stat
What are the “life-threatening” situations where an abortion is necessary?
Ectopic pregnancy is obviously recognized as legitimate.
Preeclampsia is treated by delivery of the baby, not murdering it.
Uterine rupture is treated by delivery of the baby and probably a hysterectomy, not abortion.
Women who have conditions that would cause death shouldn’t be having children in the first place and should be sterilized.
Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you! Carry On.
Saying the quiet part out loud is generally a bad look. Would that be forcible sterilization? Could the women appeal to Todd Rokita for their dignity first?
It does fit with the attitude of Indiana, in which we loudly claim to be a pro-life state as long as it doesn’t cost a red cent more. We’d rather women die than spend money on them.
Joe,
If a woman has a severe medical condition that would cause death in the setting of becoming pregnant, then why would that woman take a chance with getting pregnant and die from that?
How about this: a simple answer, but not common in this environment–let’s let women determine what kind of healthy care they receive. And not allow men–especially (some) men (some of the) neanderthals commenting here–to make these critical decisions.
Hey Rick, how about letting the children decide whether they live or die?
Of course the “conservatives” are going to be skeptical. They don’t want to admit they just made up “alternate facts” to justify last year’s ruling, and that the rights they took away have real life consequences that they never considered because most of them are men.