“That is the nature of prosecutorial discretion,” Turner told her.

Mental health exception

When discussing what constitutes an emergency abortion, Turner repeatedly brought up the example of abortion care for a patient experiencing a mental health crisis, arguing that federal law would allow a physician to provide that care.

He said there should be other standards of care for someone experiencing a mental health crisis other than abortion and argued that using abortion to treat a mental health emergency would allow for unnecessary abortions in Idaho.

Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, said EMTALA could never require an abortion as stabilizing care for a mental health emergency, because it does not treat the underlying condition.

“That is not the accepted standard of health to treat any pregnancy emergency,” Prelogar told the court.

Access to care

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have wide-ranging consequences outside Idaho, said Sabrina Talukder, director of the Center for American Progress’ Women’s Initiative, outside the court.

She argued exceptions to EMTALA could extend to AIDS-related emergencies, gender-affirming care or even some high-cost chronic conditions like diabetes.

“There is no end to what an extremist legislature could do,” Talukder said.

...continued

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. Visit at rollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.