Welcome to the news hour. It was a charged atmosphere at the Supreme Court today as the

justices heard arguments in a major abortion case out of Idaho. The court looked at whether

a federal law requiring hospitals to provide abortion care in emergency

situations would apply to states with strict abortion bans.

Currently more than two dozen states ban or severely restrict abortion access, but there are six states in particular, including Idaho, with no health exceptions.

The case brought protesters on all sides of the abortion issue to the Supreme Court today

for what was the second case on reproductive care before the court in the last month.

Special correspondent, Sarah Varney joins us.

She spent years covering health care and is

closely following this case. Sarah, thanks so much for being with us. The

arguments today were lively and there was a lot of talk about this federal law and how it is applied.

Walk us through the arguments.

So the Idaho law that you outlined went into effect out the Supreme Court overturned Roby Way

about two years ago and it made abortion illegal except when a woman is about to die due to her pregnancy.

So the Biden administration sued Idaho saying that the state's ban conflicts with a federal law called EMTALA that stands for the Emergency

Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

And EMTALA basically requires hospitals to stabilize all patients, even if that requires

an abortion, not just when the patient

is about to die but to preserve their health. And there were some intense

exchanges during the session today especially from the court's liberal wing, who seemed to take issue with the Idaho law.

Let's listen to Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Idaho law says the doctor has to determine not that there's merely a serious medical condition

...