Supreme fracture on Idaho abort

The Supreme Court splintered Wednesday during oral arguments on a closely watched case out of Idaho about the extent to which a federal law trumps the state’s ban on abortion during life-and-death emergencies.

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), passed in 1986, emergency rooms that participate in Medicare are required to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to individuals in dire conditions.

The Biden administration has contended EMTALA effectively supersedes Idaho’s abortion ban — which has a carve-out for the life of the mother — in emergency situations. The Justice Department filed a complaint to that end in 2022.

The justices for the most part aligned along ideological lines, except for Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett.

“If ER doctors can perform whatever treatment they determine is appropriate, then doctors can ignore not only state abortion laws, but also state regulations on opioid use and informed consent requirements,” argued Josh Turner, a lawyer representing Idaho.

“I’m kind of shocked, actually, because I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered — and you’re now saying they’re not?” Barrett asked.

Turner said his team hadn’t encountered a situation in its affidavits in which Idaho’s laws prevented a physician in “his or her good-faith judgment to perform an emergency abortion.”