Update: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 27 to reinstate a lower court ruling blocking Idaho’s abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients with emergency medical conditions. The ruling revives EMTALA protections in Idaho for now, but does not confirm whether people who need stabilizing abortions are entitled to the same EMTALA protections as all other patients. Read more here.

Listen to an audio replay and read the transcript of the April 24 oral arguments on the Supreme Court’s website here.

In its second major abortion case this term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, April 24, in a case that could deny pregnant patients access to emergency medical care and further upend abortion access across the country.

The dispute concerns the State of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, which conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)—a federal law that requires hospitals to provide “stabilizing treatment”—including emergency abortion care—to patients seeking care in emergency rooms.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing Idaho, arguing that the state’s abortion ban conflicts with EMTALA, since the ban prevents Idaho hospitals from stabilizing patients in need of emergency care. The lawsuit will decide whether Idaho hospitals are obligated to treat pregnant patients facing dire medical conditions—or whether state abortion bans can override EMTALA’s protections.

The arguments, beginning at 10 a.m. EDT, will be streamed on the Court’s website.

Currently, Idahoans experiencing dangerous pregnancy complications have no federal protections for stabilizing medical care, since in January, the Court allowed the state’s abortion ban to override EMTALA while it considers the case.

The Center for Reproductive Rights submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the case on behalf of pregnant women in states with abortion bans who were denied or delayed stabilizing abortion care while experiencing obstetrical emergencies. The brief argues that although states with abortion bans often have “exceptions” for people who experience life-threatening pregnancy complications, these exceptions do not, in reality, offer adequate protections.

On March 26, the Court heard arguments in another significant abortion case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. That case was filed by anti-abortion advocates challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone and seeking to remove it from the market nationwide.

About EMTALA

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law requiring hospital emergency departments to provide “stabilizing treatment.” Read about EMTALA protections here.

OB-GYNs Leaving Idaho Due to State’s Abortion Bans

Idaho’s abortion bans have already created a public health crisis in the state, with OB-GYNs leaving the state and hospitals closing their labor and delivery wards. Three Idaho hospital labor and delivery departments recently closed, and the state is seeing the expansion of “obstetric deserts,” requiring people to travel long distances to receive prenatal care or to deliver.

According to a report by the Idaho Physician Well-Being Action Collaborative, Idaho lost 22% of practicing obstetricians since its abortion bans took effect.

Center Challenging Idaho’s Abortion Bans in a Separate Lawsuit

In September, the Center filed a case against Idaho seeking to clarify and expand the medical exceptions to the state’s abortion bans to ensure physicians can provide abortion care to preserve a pregnant person’s health and safety.

The case, Adkins v. State of Idaho, was brought on behalf of four women who were denied medically necessary abortion care in their home state; two Idaho physicians who provide obstetrical care; and a professional membership organization consisting of Idaho physicians, medical residents and medical students. The case is working its way through the courts.