The law is 'clear,' Idaho AG Labrador says. Supreme Court hears case on abortion ban

“How can you impose duties on what Idaho can and cannot criminalize?” Alito asked Prelogar.

Alito also raised the question of mental health and whether a woman experiencing a mental health crisis can receive abortion as a stabilizing treatment. Prelogar said the federal government’s stance is that termination of pregnancy does not constitute treatment for a mental health emergency.

The justices questioned Prelogar over several other aspects of EMTALA and its overlap with abortion. Chief Justice John Roberts asked Prelogar whether the federal government allows exceptions to EMTALA when a physician has a conflict of conscience with a treatment.

“You cannot force a doctor to step over a conscience objection,” Prelogar said. But she noted that, if a hospital fails to employ any doctors who will perform an abortion, the hospital could face penalties under EMTALA for not offering appropriate medical care.

When will court rule on Idaho abortion case?

The justices are expected to issue a ruling on the case in June or July. The court leans conservative, prompting some analysts to predict it will rule in Idaho’s favor.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, who attended Wednesday’s case and sat at the front of the courtroom alongside Turner, told reporters after the hearing that he felt confident in Idaho’s argument but was unsure how the court would rule.

“I think it’s really hard to read what the court’s gonna do,” Labrador said. “It’s hard to read the tea leaves.”

He reiterated Turner’s claims that Idaho abortion law exists without conflict with EMTALA and said the Idaho Medical Association has been “trying to confuse people” about when abortion is legal.

“We have been clear on what the law means, and the Idaho Supreme Court was clear about what the law means,” Labrador said.

Idaho stakeholders react to hearing

As Labrador spoke, the rally outside the court continued 50 yards away. Dozens of abortion rights activists, many with the Women’s National Law Center, raised cheers as speakers vowed to continue fighting for abortion access across the nation.

“Whose courts?” one speaker prompted. “Our courts!” the crowd replied.

Just south of the throng of abortion rights protesters, anti-abortion demonstrators played patriotic songs over their speakers. Organized by Stanton Healthcare, they were surrounded by purple signs emblazoned with the message, “Emergency rooms are not abortion clinics.”

Brandi Swindell, founder and CEO of Stanton Healthcare, an anti-abortion pregnancy center based in Meridian, told reporters outside the courthouse that she was encouraged by the conservative justices’ skepticism of Prelogar’s arguments.

She called the federal government’s stance in the case “a slap in the face” to Idaho voters, women and “preborn children.”

“It was an honor to attend these oral arguments and to see firsthand this very, very important discussion that can set a precedent for the entire nation,” Swindell said.

Meanwhile, Boise Mayor Lauren McLean in a statement Wednesday said she stands with health care providers and urged the Supreme Court to rule in favor of EMTALA.

“Nobody should have to travel to another state for medical care they need, McLean said, “and yet that’s what’s happening because we are losing health care providers and emergencies can’t be treated here.”

Idaho Senate and House minority leaders Melissa Wintrow and Ilana Rubel, both Boise Democrats, also made the trip to Washington, D.C., and said they wanted to represent Idaho residents who oppose the abortion law. Wintrow pointed to polling in Idaho that showed most Idaho residents disagreed with the state laws on abortion and wanted fewer restrictions on the procedure.

Rubel told the Statesman she wanted to ensure that Labrador and other Republican supporters of the law weren’t the only voices from Idaho at the courthouse.

“It was very important to to say that there’s another side, and that there are those of us who do believe that women’s health and livelihood matters, and that we’re here fighting for them,” Rubel said.

Wintrow and Rubel said they were glad that the court’s liberal justices pushed back at Turner’s arguments. The legislators refuted Turner and Labrador’s assertions that Idaho law is clear and in compliance with EMTALA.

Rubel said it’s “headspinning” to look at how abortion access in Idaho has changed since 2022.

“Two years ago we had full freedom and autonomy,” she said. “Now we’re fighting over these scraps about whether a woman in a dire health emergency can get necessary medically required stabilizing care.”