By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday wades back into the battle over abortion access in arguments pitting Idaho’s strict Republican-backed abortion ban against a federal law that ensures that patients can receive emergency care.
The justices are set to hear arguments in an appeal by Idaho officials after a lower court ruled that the 1986 U.S. law at issue, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), takes precedence over the state’s near-total ban. President Joe Biden’s administration has urged the justices to uphold that ruling.
The dispute has prompted the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to revisit the fraught legal landscape that it created with its June 2022 decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide.
Idaho is one of seven states to put in place in the past two years a near-total abortion ban with no exception to protect the health of pregnant patients, according to a U.S. Justice Department filing.
In Idaho, a so-called abortion “trigger” law adopted in 2020 automatically took effect upon Roe’s reversal. Idaho’s law bans nearly all abortions unless needed to prevent a mother’s death. Doctors face two to five years in prison and suspension or revocation of their medical license if convicted of violating it.
At the same time, EMTALA requires hospitals that receive funding under the federal Medicare program to “stabilize” patients with emergency medical conditions. At issue in the case is whether Idaho’s ban must yield to EMTALA when a doctor determines an abortion is the necessary “stabilizing care.”
Following Roe’s demise, Biden’s administration issued federal guidance stating that EMTALA takes precedence over state abortion bans when the two conflict, and filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s ban.
Boise-based U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in 2022 blocked enforcement of Idaho’s law in cases of abortions needed to avoid putting the woman’s health in “serious jeopardy” or risking “serious impairment to bodily functions.”
The Supreme Court in January let Idaho enforce its law while also agreeing to decide its legality.
Idaho’s Republican attorney general and top Republican state lawmakers in court papers told the Supreme Court that the state’s law and EMTALA are not actually at odds.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected by the end of June.
It is not the only abortion case the justices are due to decide during this presidential election year. The court is expected to rule by the end of June in a challenge by anti-abortion groups and doctors seeking to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a drug approved by federal regulators in 2000.
