station from viewers like you.
Thank you.
Amna: Welcome to the newshour.
It was a charged atmosphere at
the supreme court today as the
justices heard arguments in a
major abortion case out of
Idaho.
The court looked at whether a
federal law requiring hospitals
to provide medical care in
emergency situations would apply
to states with strict abortion
bans.
Currently, more than two dozen
states ban or severely restrict
abortion access but there are
six states in particular,
including Idaho, with no health
exceptions.
Geoff: The case brought
protesters on all sides of the
abortion issue to the court
today for what was the second
case on reproductive care before
the court in the last month.
Special correspodent Sarah
Varney joins us.
She's spent years covering
health care and is closely
following the case.
Thank you for being with us.
The arguments were lively and
there was a lot of talk about
this federal law and how it is
applied.
Sarah: The Idaho law you
outlined when into effect after
the supreme court overturned roe
V. Wade two years ago and made
abortion illegal except when the
woman is about to die during her
pregnancy.
The Biden administration sued
Idaho saying the state's ban
conflicts with a federal law.
It basically requires hospitals
to stabilize all patients even
if that requires an abortion,
not just when the patient is
about to die but to preserve
their health.
Geoff:geoff: There were some
intense exchanges especially
from the court's liberal wing
who seem to take issue with the
Idaho law.
>> Idaho law says the doctor has
to determine not that there is a
serious medical condition but
the person will die.
>> Yeah.
>> That's a huge difference,
counsel.
>> Your honor, we agree that the
-- there is daylight between how
the administration is reading
emtala and what Idaho's defense
of life act permits. We agree
that there's a controversy here.
>> No, no, no, no, no, there's
more than a controversy.
What you are saying is that
there is no federal law on the
book that prohibits any state
from saying, even if a woman
will die, you can't perform an
abortion.
Geoff: What concern is she
highlighting?
Sarah: She is saying if the
federal government cannot compel
states to provide medical care
it will always be up to the
state to make that call.
Conceivably a state like Idaho,
which does have fetal personhood
, could prioritize fetal life
over a pregnant woman's life
even when the pregnancy is not
likely to survive.
The briefs in this case are full
of women being denied standard
medical care in Idaho and around
the country.
Justice Sotomayor described a
real-life case of a woman in
Florida who was 16 weeks
pregnant when she went to the er
and felt water leave her body.
That is a premature rupture
which puts you at risk for
serious uncontrolled infection.
She was refused treatment
because the fetus which would
not survive was still alive and
eventually the woman bled out
and was given an abortion.
These were the cases the
justices were bringing up.
The justices were focused on the
harm and permanent harm, loss of
fertility that women face with
pregnancy.
At one point it was surprising.
Justice Amy coney Barrett who is
a staunch opponent of abortion
rights was taken aback by what
she was hearing happening at
hospitals in Iowa -- Idaho and
elsewhere.
>> I'm kind of shocked actually
because I thought your own
expert had said below that these
kinds of cases were covered.
And you're now saying they're
not?
>> No, I'm not saying that.
That's just my point, your
honor, is that --
>> Well, you're hedging.
I mean, justice Sotomayor is
asking you would this be covered
or not, and it was my
understanding that the
legislature's witnesses said
that these would be covered.
>> Yeah, and those doctors said,
if they were exercising their
medical judgment, they could in
good faith determine that
lifesaving care was necessary.
And that's my point.
This is a subjective standard.
>> But some doctors couldn't, is
-- some doctors might reach a
contrary conclusion.
Geoff: In the Dobbs decision it
was justice Alito who seemed
particularly focused on this
matter of fetal life.
In today's arguments he talked a
lot about unborn children.
>> Regarding the status and the
potential interests of an unborn
child, the hospital must
stabilize the threat to the
unborn child.
And it seems that the plain
meaning is that the hospital
must try to eliminate any
immediate threat to the child,
but performing an abortion is
antithetical to that duty.
>> And in many of the cases
you're thinking about, there is
no possible way to -- to
stabilize the unborn child
because the fetus is
sufficiently before viability
that it's inevitable that the
pregnancy is going to be lost,
but Idaho would deny women
treatment in that circumstance.
Geoff: Put that portion of the
argument in context for us.
Sarah: Justice Alito appears
ready to take up the question of
fetal personhood which has been
the ultimate goal of the --
justice courses mentioned.
There are lies in Idaho,
Alabama, Texas -- there are laws
in Idaho, Alabama and Texas said
the pregnancy is a full person
under the law.
Justice Alito's decision really
signals a willingness to go
there.
It essentially says if there is
a tossup between having to
choose between a woman's life
and a fetus' life, it is up to
the state who gets to win ou we
know the case will likely.
Geoff: Reverberate beyond Idaho.
Sarah: Texas has also sued
around emtala.
If Idaho wins you can be sure
that at least six states that do
not have the health exception
for the mother will follow
Idaho's lead.
We are seeing this play out on
the ground in emergency rooms.
You would imagine those types of
cases and women being turned
away would just continue to
escalate.
Geoff: Sarah Varney, thank you
so much.
Sarah: Thank you.
♪♪