Supreme Court deeply DIVIDED over Idaho abortion law: Justices get into heated argument over the 'shocking' scope of state's near-total ban that stops doctors giving women emergency care

• Court heard arguments over Idaho case on abortions in medical emergencies 
• Biden administration believes Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act trumps state abortion laws in some cases
• It's the first case over a state abortion ban to go before the court since Roe fell
• Pro and anti-abortion rights protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court

Supreme Court justices are deeply divided on a critical case about whether emergency room doctors in Idaho, where abortion is nearly banned, can turn away pregnant patients who need the procedure.

The conservative majority on the court appeared conflicted on some aspects of the case which involves overlapping issues and complicated arguments regarding abortion and medical care. 

In one gripping moment, Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed her 'shock' at the risk a doctor would have to take on to provide an emergency abortion to save a life - and potentially be criminally prosecuted. 

Her vote will be pivotal to the outcomes of the case in the 6-3 split conservative leaning court. 

It is the first time the country's highest court is weighing the scope of a state abortion ban after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022 returning the issue of abortion to states. 

Pro-life and pro-abortion protestors gathered outside the historic court to rally supporters ahead of the closely-watched arguments that could impact states with laws similar to Idaho.

Oral arguments took place in Moyle v United States and Idaho v United States which focused on Idaho's abortion law which bans nearly all abortions with limited exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

The Biden administration argued the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) can in some circumstances supersedes state law that criminalizes abortion.

But Idaho rejects the argument, claiming the law does not require doctors to provide specific medical treatments or require hospitals to perform abortions.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe with the Dobbs decision in 2022 ending the constitutional right to an abortion, Idaho was one of more than a dozen states that moved immediately to ban abortion with limited exceptions.

While Idaho's law has an exception for the life of the mother, it does not focus on 'health' of the mother, which was central in the Biden administration's argument and questioning on Wednesday.

The Biden administration argues that EMTALA could be used because it requires emergency rooms provide 'necessary stabilizing treatment.'

'Today, doctors in Idaho and the women in Idaho are in an impossible position,' said Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. 

'If a woman comes to an emergency room facing a grave threat to her health, but she isn’t yet facing death, doctors either have to delay treatment and allow her condition to materially deteriorate or they’re airlifting her out of the state so she can get the emergency care that she needs,' she continued.

'In Idaho doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,' she later said.

'Whereas under EMTALA, you're supposed to be thinking about things like is she about to loser her fertility, is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding?'

One line of questioning brought up by conservative justices was whether the claim to serious mental health concerns could be used to receive an abortion under EMTALA.

'Does health mean only physical health or does it also include mental health?' Justice Samuel Alito asked.

'That could never lead to pregnancy termination because that is not the accepted standard of practice to treat any mental health emergency,' said Prelogar.

Joshua Turner made arguments on behalf of Idaho. He said nothing in EMTALA preempts the state's power to regulate medicine.

'If ER doctors can perform whatever treatment they determine is appropriate, then doctors can ignore not only state abortion laws, but also state regulations on opioid use and informed consent requirements,' Turner argued.

He claimed it 'leaves emergency rooms unregulated under state law.' 

Liberal justices pushed back on the argument of states regulating medicine. 

They pressed Turner over whether the state's ban would prevent abortion in a situation where a woman could end up losing an organ or result in serious medical complications. 

'Idaho law does say that abortions in that case aren't allowed,' Turner responded to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The liberal justices were joined by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett who at one point said she was 'shocked' and pressed Turner over when doctors could be criminally prosecuted under state law.

 'What if the prosecutor thought well "I don’t think any good faith doctor could draw that conclusion. I’m going to put on my expert,"' Barrett suggested when it comes to determining an emergency.

'That, your honor, is the nature of prosecutorial discretion and it may result in a case,' Turner responded.

Turner also made the argument brought up by conservatives that if the court upholds the requirement to provide abortions needed in a medical emergency, women could get abortions by claiming the pregnancy is causing them severe mental distress when they arrive in emergency rooms.

Outside the Supreme Court crowds of protesters both for and against abortion rights gathered as arguments were made.

Some pro-abortion rights protesters held signs that read 'abortion is health care' and 'abortion saves lives.' Some protesters dressed in white and covered in fake blood even participated in a 'die-in' in support of abortion access in emergency rooms. 

Anti-abortion protesters had signs that read 'emergency rooms are not abortion clinics.'

This is the second abortion related case the Supreme Court has heard in recent weeks. Last month, it heard arguments over the medical abortion drug mifepristone, in a case which could impact access to the drug not just in states that ban abortion but nationally. 

The Supreme Court will likely release its ruling in the case in late June before recess.