Justices Seemed Split on Emergency Abortion Access
Supreme Court justices appeared sharply divided today over whether federal law should allow doctors to perform emergency abortions in states that have adopted near-total bans on the procedure.
At issue in the case is Idaho’s ban, which allows abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman but not to prevent her health from deteriorating. The federal government argued that the Idaho measure violates a federal law requiring hospitals to stabilize or transfer patients with urgent medical issues.
The challenge applies to only a tiny fraction of the nation’s abortions, my colleague Pam Belluck, who covers reproductive care, told me. “But the implications of whatever the Supreme Court decides in this case could be very broad,” she added.
A broad decision could especially affect abortion access in the 14 states that have enacted near-total bans. “It could telegraph to states that what Idaho is doing either is or is not OK, and that could change those states’ abortion bans one way or another,” Pam said. “If the justices side with Idaho, it could also say to states that ‘abortion isn’t the only thing you can restrict.’”
Today’s arguments were lively, and at times they suggested that there was a possible divide along gender lines. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared skeptical that Idaho’s law superseded the federal law. “I don’t think it’s a slam dunk either way,” Pam said.
Pam also noted that today’s hearing suggested that some of the court’s conservatives, particularly Justice Samuel Alito, may be prepared to embrace the language of fetal personhood, which is the notion that fetuses have rights that require protection.