On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding Idaho’s abortion ban potentially conflicting with federal emergency medicine statutes.

For Context: Idaho law only allows for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or to prevent the death of the mother. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, is a federal policy mandating federally-funded hospitals provide “stabilizing care” to patients. The Biden Administration argued that EMTALA mandates doctors perform abortion procedures when required to stabilize the health of a pregnant woman, even if the woman’s life is not at risk. Lawyers for the state of Idaho accused the Biden Administration of overreaching and manipulating EMTALA.

Key Quotes: Justice Sonya Sotomayor highlighted the disparity between the federal and state laws, stating, “If objective medical care requires you to treat women who present the potential of serious medical complications, and the abortion is the only thing that can prevent that, you have to do it. Idaho law says the doctor has to determine not that there’s really a serious medical condition but that the person will die. That’s a huge difference.” Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical of the Biden Administration’s authority, at one point asking, “Could the federal government condition the receipt of funds on hospitals that they comply with medical ethics rules provided for by the federal government?”

How the Media Covered It: The Hill (Center bias) and the Daily Beast (Left bias) highlighted the questions asked by the female Justices, who appeared more critical of Idaho’s law.