During a contentious Supreme Court hearing, Idaho attorney Joshua Turner was grilled by female liberal justices about hypothetical scenarios involving pregnancy complications that pose serious health risks to women. The discussion centered on the gruesome medical emergencies at the heart of the case.
Justice Sotomayor posed a question to Turner: “Can states 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 delved into the complexities surrounding situations where an abortion may be necessary to stabilize a woman’s health but not required to save her life. Justice Elena Kagan added another scenario where a woman could lose her reproductive organs.
Turner struggled to provide clear and concise answers to these challenging situations presented by the justices. Justice Sotomayor then pushed Turner further on a pregnancy complication that could lead to sepsis or hemorrhaging and questioned him about 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 shifted from legal questions surrounding federal preemption of state medical regulations to an exploration of the implications of Idaho’s abortion ban in medical emergencies. The questioning raised skepticism from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, who may play crucial roles as swing votes in this landmark case.