During the Supreme Court hearing, the all-female, liberal wing dived into hypothetical scenarios presented by Idaho attorney Joshua Turner where pregnancy complications could potentially endanger women’s health. The discussion veered into the realm of gruesome medical emergencies that lie at the core of the case. Justice Sotomayor initiated the line of interrogation by questioning Turner about Idaho’s interpretation of the federal emergency care law, probing whether states could ban abortions even if a woman’s life is in jeopardy.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson honed in on the main “conflict” in the case, focusing on situations where an abortion may be necessary to stabilize a woman’s condition but not required to save her life. Justice Elena Kagan continued probing, presenting Turner with a scenario where a woman might lose her reproductive organs due to complications. As Turner navigated through these “difficult” situations, Justice Sotomayor interjected with questions about a pregnancy complication that could lead to sepsis or hemorrhaging and brought up a case where a woman was denied an abortion earlier in her pregnancy, ultimately resulting in the death of the baby and the woman needing a hysterectomy.
Following a more theoretical discussion on federal preemption of state medical regulations at the beginning of the hearing, the focus shifted to the crucial role of the Idaho abortion ban in medical emergencies. Turner’s responses prompted some scrutiny from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, indicating their potential to be pivotal swing votes in the case.