The case appears to be "a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly," Gorsuch said.

Barrett said the law already offers "conscience protections" to shield doctors who have moral objections to abortions from being required to perform them. She said she saw no evidence that those protections were not being honored.

Kavanaugh asked for clarification: "Under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion, correct?"

Yes, Prelogar replied.

In 2022, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett cast crucial votes in the court's 5-4 decision to strike down the longtime constitutional right to abortion.

The challenge to the legality of abortion medication posed a test for the court's antiabortion conservatives. The opinion in the Dobbs case said the regulation of abortion should be decided by states and elected officials, not judges.

During Tuesday's arguments, Gorsuch and Barrett in particular questioned why judges in Texas had taken on the role of regulating abortion medication.

The court's liberal members similarly questioned the basis for the case.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she saw "a significant mismatch" between what the antiabortion doctors complained about and the remedy they were seeking.

"They're saying, 'Because we we object to having to participate in this procedure, we're seeking an order preventing anyone from having access to these drugs at all,'" she said.

...continued

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.