During a recent Supreme Court hearing, the all-female, liberal wing of the court grilled Idaho attorney Joshua Turner on hypothetical situations involving pregnancy complications that put women’s health at risk. The discussion shifted to gruesome medical emergencies at the center of the case.
Justice Sotomayor led off by asking Turner directly whether Idaho’s interpretation of the federal emergency care law would allow states to ban abortions even in cases where a woman’s life was in danger. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson zeroed in on the central conflict in the case, focusing on scenarios where an abortion was needed to stabilize a woman but not necessarily to save her life.
The justices then delved into these hypothetical scenarios, with Justice Elena Kagan posing a situation where a woman could potentially lose her reproductive organs. Turner attempted to address the complexities of these situations, but Justice Sotomayor interrupted, pressing him on a pregnancy complication that could lead to sepsis or hemorrhaging. She also questioned about a case where a woman was denied an abortion earlier in her pregnancy, resulting in the death of the baby and the woman needing a hysterectomy.
The intense questioning regarding the Idaho abortion ban’s impact on medical emergencies followed the hearing’s initial focus on legal matters regarding federal preemption of state medical regulations. Turner’s responses led to some skeptical inquiries from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, who may play pivotal roles as swing votes in the case.
