The Supreme Court on Wednesday barred doctors from performing emergency abortions in states with near-total bans on them, in a case that could determine whether abortions are available in emergency rooms across the country. Opinions seemed to be sharply divided over whether it should be recognized under federal law.
The lively two-hour discussion focused on the conflict between Idaho and federal laws that legally restrict access to abortion unless a pregnant woman's life is at risk. The justices' questioning suggested a division along ideological and perhaps gender lines.
“What the state of Idaho is doing is waiting for the woman to deteriorate and suffer lifelong health consequences without any chance of improvement for her unborn child,” Elizabeth said on behalf of the federal government. said Attorney General B. Prelogar. “It's just tragedy upon tragedy.”
Justice Elena Kagan interjected that the current situation did not seem tenable, saying, “Forcing someone into a helicopter is not an appropriate standard of care.”
The clash between the two laws only affects women who face serious medical complications during pregnancy, but the far-reaching decision marks the first time since the court overturned the constitutional right to abortion that it almost universally restricts abortion. That could affect the dozen or so states that have banned it. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Medical Institution to be held in June 2022.
The debate marks the second time in less than a month that the Supreme Court has weighed in on abortion. It's a stark reminder that the issue continues to return to the court even after Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. vowed to return the issue to elected officials in 2022. In late March, the justices considered the availability of the abortion drug mifepristone.
The federal law at issue, the Emergency Medical Labor Act (EMTALA), enacted by Congress in 1986, requires hospitals receiving federal funding to provide consistent care to patients.
Under Idaho's near-total ban on abortion, the procedure is illegal except in cases of incest, rape, nonviable pregnancies, or when “necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman.” Doctors who perform abortions could face criminal penalties, prison terms, and loss of their medical licenses.
The Biden administration has argued that federal law is inconsistent with Idaho's law and should take precedence. Lawyers for the state argue that the administration improperly interpreted federal law in a way that circumvented the state's ban.
Several conservative justices say Idaho's abortion restrictions should overturn a decades-old law aimed at preventing “patient dumping” in which hospitals deny care to the poor and uninsured. He seems skeptical of the federal government's claims.
“How can the state of Idaho impose limits on what it can criminalize just because its hospitals choose to participate in Medicare?” Justice Alito asked.
The three liberal justices brought up several harrowing examples of pregnant women facing serious complications that could leave them unable to have children or suffering debilitating injuries. , strongly opposed attorney Joshua N. Turner, who represents the state of Idaho. They also cited recent reports that hospitals have flown several women to other states for emergency abortion care since Idaho's ban went into effect. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett also participated in the grilling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor posited a hypothesis about a patient whose water ruptured prematurely and required a hysterectomy and abortion, stating that state law allows doctors to determine in good faith whether a patient's life is in danger. He appears to be skeptical of Mr. Turner's claim that the
“She can no longer have children,” Justice Sotomayor said. “Okay? Are you saying that the doctor there couldn't have performed the abortion sooner?”
“Again, it goes back to the question of whether a doctor can make an honest medical judgment,” Turner began.
“That's a big risk for doctors,” Justice Sotomayor responded.
Mr Turner replied, “It really depends on a case-by-case basis,'' and Judge Barrett agreed: “I'm actually a little shocked, because your own expert has said below that this type of case is covered. Because I thought he said that,” she said.
Despite Turner's response that such cases would be covered if the doctor acted in good faith, Judge Barrett continued his pursuit.
“What if prosecutors thought differently?” she asked. “What if the prosecutor believes that no honest doctor could reach such a conclusion?”
“Your Honor, that is the nature of prosecutorial discretion and could lead to litigation,” Turner said.
The long-running back-and-forth between Justice Alito and Ms. Preloger is a broader question of whether some conservative justices are prepared to accept the term fetal personhood, the concept that a fetus has the same rights as a pregnant woman. posed a question.
Although Justice Alito relied on the language of fetal personhood in writing the Dobbs court's majority opinion, he noted that the federal law's “quote, unquote, reference to the fetus'' phrase in federal law is “a potentially very important phrase.'' He pointed out that one thing was not mentioned. ”
“Isn't that an odd word to put in a law that mandates abortion?” Justice Alito asked. “Have you ever seen an abortion law that uses the word 'fetus'?”
Ms. Preloger responded that it makes sense from a federal law perspective because it attempts to ensure that hospitals treat both pregnant women and unborn babies in emergency medical situations.
The Biden administration has relied on EMTALA as a narrow way to counter state-level abortion bans.
After courts overturned the constitutional right to abortion, near-total bans on abortion procedures quickly went into effect in some states, including Idaho.
After the state's Republican-controlled Legislature passes the Defense of Life Act, which criminalizes performing or assisting in abortions, the Biden administration will sue the state in August 2022, arguing that federal law trumps state law in the following cases: He argued that it should be given priority. The two are in direct conflict.
Federal law says hospitals must provide treatment to people with “emergency medical conditions.” According to the law, in the case of a pregnant woman, this means when it is reasonably expected that “the health of the woman or the fetus” will be at risk if she does not seek immediate medical attention.
If a hospital violates federal law, it can be sued and lose Medicare funding. Federal law also includes a provision that states and local laws will not prevail unless the requirements are “directly inconsistent.”
However, violating state law could result in up to five years in prison and the loss of a doctor's medical license. The law allows for exceptions “to prevent maternal death,” to terminate certain pregnancies that are not viable, or to terminate certain pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the state's ban. Last fall, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals put the ruling on hold and reinstated the ban. However, that decision was ultimately overturned by an 11-member panel of the Court of Appeals, which temporarily blocked the Idaho law while the appeal continued.
On Wednesday, demonstrators gathered in competing rallies outside the Supreme Court.
Milissa Farmer, 43, who said she was denied an abortion in Missouri and Kansas after her water broke at 17 weeks, said she supports the federal law's protections.
“I don't want anyone else to go through what I went through,” Farmer said. “That's why I'm speaking out. Because it's so wrong and I can't see any light.”
Nearby, about a dozen anti-abortion demonstrators held signs that read “Abortion betrays women” and “Emergency rooms are not abortion clinics.”
“What this law does is essentially turn our hospitals and emergency rooms into abortion clinics,” Bethany Janzen, 30, founder of an anti-abortion group, said of the federal law. Ta. “And that's the problem.”
Aishwarya Kabi Contributed to the report.
