The Supreme Court heard heated arguments on Wednesday over whether states can criminalize life-saving, stabilizing abortion care in emergency medical situations.

The arguments, a consolidation of Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States , focused on Idahos near-total abortion ban, which first went into effect in August 2022. The justices debated whether the narrow exceptions in Idahos ban override federally mandated requirements for physicians under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. EMTALA requires hospitals that participate in Medicare the majority of hospitals in the country to offer abortion care if its necessary to stabilize the health of a pregnant patient while theyre experiencing a medical emergency.

The arguments highlighted the debate happening across the country since the Dobbs decision repealed Roe v. Wade: Are post-Dobbs abortion bans operating smoothly, or have they turned reproductive health upside down, forcing physicians and patients into impossible, often deadly, situations?

The Supreme Court case focuses on one of the Idaho bans three narrowly defined exceptions : when an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.

Federal law states that physicians are legally required to offer abortion in that scenario, but Idahos law is so narrow that it only allows physicians to perform an abortion when death is imminent. Those added delays could leave patients with long-term health conditions such as uterine hemorrhage (requiring a hysterectomy) or kidney failure that requires lifelong dialysis if the procedure is performed in time to save their lives in the first place.

The outcome of the case wasnt immediately clear following arguments with the courts conservative supermajority of six justices potentially split and the three liberal justices in clear opposition to Idahos position. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the lone conservative to express any seeming opposition to Idaho during arguments.