Supreme Court weighs whether hospitals obligated to provide emergency abortions

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in a case that will ultimately decide whether hospitals have an obligation, under federal law, to provide emergency abortions to women in medical emergencies even in states with abortion bans.

The justices are weighing a case from Idaho, where a strict abortion ban was enacted in 2022, a year after the court overturned Roe v Wade.

It is the latest abortion case to end up in the hands of the court after justices heard arguments in another seeking to restrict abortion medication last month. A decision in both cases is not expected sometime in or before June.

The case arguments arrive after several high-profile incidents where pregnant women have detailed physically and emotionally traumatizing medical situations in which they were denied abortions due to state laws but faced sepsis, severe bleeding, pain and more.

Emergency room doctors in Idaho face an impossible choice when a pregnant patient arrives with a medical condition that may require them to perform an abortion due to a strict, yet vague, anti-abortion law that directly conflicts with their role as medical professionals and federal statute.

They can treat the patient who needs an abortion to prevent serious bodily dysfunction or jeopardize their health – as required under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) – but potentially face jail time or medical license suspension due to the state law, Idaho Defense of Life Act.

Alternatively, they can decline to treat the patient to protect their medical license and prevent criminal prosecution, putting the health of the pregnant person in jeopardy and violating EMTALA.

It’s the same conflict that emergency room doctors in Texas are facing