Posted on 08/07/2022 6:14:37 PM PDT by marshmallow
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Idaho, seeking to block the state’s trigger law which will ban abortions — with a few exceptions — beginning Aug. 25.
Announcing the lawsuit in an Aug. 2 press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the DOJ is suing the state because of a supposed conflict with a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to a person experiencing a medical emergency, regardless of their ability to pay.
The lawsuit is the first legal challenge brought by the federal government against a state abortion restriction since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, returning the question of abortion policy to the states. The DOJ is seeking to block Idaho’s law from taking effect.
Garland asserted that Idaho's law will prevent doctors from performing abortions when the mother's life is at risk, despite the law having an explicit carveout for such a situation. Idaho’s law provides an exception to the ban if the abortion was, in the physician’s judgement, “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”
Under the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), every hospital that receives Medicaid funds must provide "stabilizing treatment'" to patients with an "emergency medical condition." According to the DOJ, the law defines necessary stabilizing treatment to include “all treatment needed to ensure that a patient will not have her health placed in serious jeopardy, have her bodily functions seriously impaired, or suffer serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicnewsagency.com ...
SCOTUS found abortion is not covered in the Constitution. Who has standing to bring action against the Exec and Leg branches for unconstitutional activity?
Isn’t the so-called “Justice” department supposed to support the legal system?
I don’t see the conflict...They’re just looking for an injunction....to slow down the trigger law as far as I can see.
Medicaid isn’t in the Constitution, either.
Neither are block grants with strings attached, either. The idea is inherently unconstitutional, since it inverts the 10th Amendment. All block grant programs should be declared unconstitutional.
Imagine being so intent on killing babies. It boggles the mind.
Abortions are not medical treatments.
Abortions are not “stabilizing procedures”. This is deliberate gross warping of terms.
Hey, Garland! How about going after Hunter Biden!
In all cases where a “State” is a party to the action, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
The State should IGNORE anything from the inferior courts created by congress and tell the feds to go Pound Sand unless the Supreme Court hears the case right out of the gate in Original Jurisdiction like the Constitution clearly says, they won’t.
Yes! (with a transition period giving block grants to states that revert to the old policies) Otherwise, libs get the policies they want, for FREE, just by virtue of inertia. Not good.
yeah
preferable to the DOJ investigating biden, hunter, nanzi....
Garland asserted that Idaho's law will prevent doctors from performing abortions when the mother's life is at risk, despite the law having an explicit carveout for such a situation. Idaho’s law provides an exception to the ban if the abortion was, in the physician’s judgement, “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”
The DOJ’s case has no merit. How can the DOJ win their lawsuit?
Who appointed the judge? That seems to be the only thing that matters these days. Certainly not the law.
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.