During a Supreme Court hearing, the liberal wing of the court delved into hypothetical scenarios presented by Idaho attorney Joshua Turner regarding pregnancy complications that could endanger women’s health. The discussion shifted to gruesome medical emergencies at the heart of the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor started the line of questioning by asking Turner about Idaho’s interpretation of the federal emergency care law and whether states could ban abortions even if a woman’s life is in danger.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson zeroed 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.
After 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.
