WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court heard its first test on Wednesday of state abortion bans that have been enacted since the court upended the Roe v. Wade constitutional right to abortion. While the current case involves an Idaho abortion ban, the court’s ruling could have implications beyond that state.
Idaho lawmakers have banned abortion except when a mother’s life is at risk. The Biden administration says the state law conflicts with a federal law requiring emergency room doctors to stabilize patients, no matter what, even if that means an abortion.
How the court will rule is uncertain. The justices could make a major ruling — or they could rule narrowly on how Idaho’s state law interacts with the federal law, the the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ( EMTALA ).
A look at the key points in Wednesday’s arguments.
Attorneys for both sides warned that the justices’ ruling could affect women and doctors far beyond Idaho, changing how emergency rooms treat patients in many other states.
“There are 22 states with abortion laws on the books,” said Attorney Joshua N. Turner, who represented Idaho. “This isn’t going to end with Idaho. … This question is going to come up in state after state.”
Connecticut Senate passes wide
California is still counting votes from Super Tuesday. Experts say that’s normal
US surgeons transplanted pig kidney into patient for the first time, hospital says
Paris race celebrates waiters, waitresses who nourish city
More than 1 in 4 US adults over age 50 say they expect to never retire, an AARP study finds
Mountain goat stuck under Kansas City bridge survives rocky rescue
Video from 2022 misrepresented as footage of Baltimore bridge collapse
5 takeaways from the abortion pill case before the U.S. Supreme Court
Trump will be in NY for the hush money trial while the Supreme Court hears his immunity case in DC
Study: Many cancer drugs unproven 5 years after accelerated approval
Stock market today: Asian benchmarks mostly slide as investors focus on earnings
Lego head mugshots add to California's debate on policing and privacy