In a Supreme Court hearing, female liberal justices questioned Idaho attorney Joshua Turner about hypothetical scenarios involving pregnancy complications that pose serious health risks to women. The discussion focused on the grisly medical emergencies at the core of the case. Justice Sotomayor asked Turner if states could prohibit abortions, even if a woman’s life is in danger, under Idaho’s interpretation of the federal emergency care law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted the conflicting situations where an abortion may be necessary to stabilize a woman’s health but not required to save her life. Justice Elena Kagan continued the inquiry by presenting a scenario where a woman could lose her reproductive organs. Turner struggled to address these difficult situations posed by the justices.
Justice Sotomayor further pressed Turner on a pregnancy complication that could lead to sepsis or hemorrhaging and questioned a scenario where a woman was denied an abortion earlier in her pregnancy, resulting in the death of the baby and a forced hysterectomy. The hearing then shifted from legal questions surrounding federal preemption of state medical regulations to a deeper exploration of the implications of Idaho’s abortion ban in medical emergencies.
During this extended questioning, Turner’s responses raised skepticism from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, who may play crucial roles as swing votes in the case. As they scrutinized his arguments, it became clear that their positions would have significant consequences for women seeking healthcare during medical emergencies involving pregnancy complications.
