Posted on 06/27/2024 4:15:12 PM PDT by Morgana
The nation’s highest court issued a ruling in a case today where the Biden administration wanted to force Idaho to expand abortions. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that the case needs more time at the lower court level before it can weigh in on the merits.
As a result, the Idaho abortion ban is still in place and
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court sent Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear oral arguments on the case.
The opinion is what is known as a DIG, which is “dismissed as improvidently granted.” The High Court is not taking either side but saying that the case should have been allowed to proceed further below before the Supreme Court decided to address the issue.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “This order means that the case returns to the Ninth Circuit, which had ordered that the appeal of the preliminary injunction be decided by the full court on an expedited basis without any further briefing. The abortion ban currently remains in place in Idaho, except for those in emergency room situations.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court admitted to mistakenly publishing a document online concerning a pending abortion case. Bloomberg Law obtained the document before it was promptly taken down from the website.
According to Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe, the document was “inadvertently and briefly uploaded” to the court’s website. McCabe clarified that the ruling itself “has not been released.”
It remains unclear whether the document was a draft decision, the final decision, or something else entirely. Either way, Bloomberg said it appeared the Supreme Court is going to side with Biden officials in their attempt to force Idaho to allow abortions above and beyond that it’s law allows.
The Biden administration sued the state of Idaho in 2022 “claiming that it could use [EMTALA] to … force emergency room doctors to perform abortions that are unlawful in Idaho.”
Republican Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed a brief petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Biden administration from invoking a 1986 federal statute to override his state’s pro-life law.
“The whole point of Dobbs was to restore to the states their authority to regulate abortion. Yet the administration seeks to thwart Idaho’s exercise of self-government on this important topic,” the brief stated. It called the Biden administration’s “claimed abortion mandate” under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) “imaginary.”
“The Medicare Act generally — and EMTALA specifically — preserve the right of states to regulate the practice of medicine, including on the issue of abortion,” the brief went on.
ADF explained that, contrary to the administration’s claim, “there is no conflict between EMTALA and Idaho’s law as both seek to save lives and neither requires abortions to be performed.”
“After a lower court upheld the Biden administration’s attempt to rewrite EMTALA and prevented Idaho from enforcing its law,” the legal group explained, “the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and issued a stay allowing Idaho to continue to protect the lives of women and their unborn children as the litigation continues.”
In comments to ADF, Labrador said: “Despite the portrayal by the media and the Biden administration, both Idaho law and EMTALA share a consistent goal: to protect everyone’s life, including unborn children.”
“Idaho’s law is perfectly consistent with EMTALA, which provides explicit protections for ‘unborn children’ in four separate places,” he added.
“The notion that EMTALA requires doctors to perform abortions is absurd,” stressed the attorney general. “We are asking the Supreme Court to end the administration’s unlawful overreach and to respect the people of Idaho’s decision to protect life.”
President Ronald Reagan signed EMTALA into law in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). According to the federal government-run Medicare website, the purpose of the legislation was to “ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.”
During his presidency, Reagan was widely known as a staunch opponent of legalized abortion. Two years after signing EMTALA, he urged Congress to pass a pro-life law, stating that no one is “more powerless than the unborn.”
Last month, Labrador indicated he was “pleased and encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision” to hear his case and issue a stay on the lower court ruling.
“The federal government has been wrong from day one,” he said at the time. “Federal law does not preempt Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.”
That’s exactly what I thought. The media twisted the ruling.
Heard the opposite from the news. Great if this is correct
I heard the opposite on DM and don’t understand it. I’ll trust Life News on this one
Nah, they didn’t over turn the Idaho law, they just said that there would always be emergency exceptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.