“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.

©2024 Idaho Statesman. Visit at idahostatesman.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.