Supreme Court poised to ALLOW emergency abortions in Idaho after opinion was accidentally posted on website and quickly taken down

• READ MORE: Justices divided over controversial abortion law

The Supreme Court 'inadvertently' posted - and then quickly deleted - a decision in a monumental abortion case.

The case deals with whether emergency room doctors in Idaho, where abortion is nearly banned, can turn away pregnant patients who need the procedure. 

Bloomberg first reported on a copy of a ruling that was briefly posted on the court's website before being taken down that would allow abortions to be carried out in Idaho in cases of medical emergencies.

It's the second time in two years that a major ruling on abortion has been disclosed before being formally issued by the justices.

A spokesperson for the court said in a statement that the opinion 'has not been released' and was 'inadvertently and briefly uploaded' in error. 

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. 

According to the draft opinion published by Bloomberg, the justices voted 6-3. 

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch were the three against the decision - all conservative justices. 

Alito put out a scathing dissent, stating that the court has 'simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. 

'That is regrettable,' he states according to the draft opinion. 

On the prevailing side, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision 'will prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban when the termination of a pregnancy is needed to prevent serious harms to a woman’s health.'

Kagan was joined in a concurring opinion by the two other liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor. 

The Supreme Court justices appeared deeply divided when the case was argued in April. 

The conservative majority on the court had 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. 

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

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.'