During a recent Supreme Court hearing, the all-female, liberal wing of the court interrogated Idaho attorney, Joshua Turner, regarding hypothetical situations that involved pregnancy complications putting women’s health at serious risk. The discussion turned to gruesome medical emergencies at the center of the case.
Justice Sotomayor initiated the line of questioning, asking Turner directly whether Idaho’s interpretation of the federal emergency care law would allow states to prohibit abortions even in cases where a woman’s life is in danger. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson honed in on the central conflict in the case, focusing on scenarios where an abortion is needed to stabilize a woman but not necessarily to save her life.
Further exploring these hypothetical scenarios, Justice Elena Kagan posed a situation in which a woman could potentially lose her reproductive organs. As Turner attempted to address the complexities of these situations, Justice Sotomayor intervened, pressing him on a pregnancy complication that could lead to sepsis or hemorrhaging. She also inquired 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.