Posted on 06/26/2024 11:14:24 AM PDT by Morgana
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 aboritons 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.”
And then “voluntary euthanasia” of us old coots, then they will move to implement Bill Ayres plan.
It’s not a SCOTUS ruling. It’s the text of a Brief for the Petitioner.
Didn’t SCOTUS recently decide that abortion was a state issue?
2 years ago yes something is going on
“It’s not a SCOTUS ruling. It’s the text of a Brief for the Petitioner.”
That sure not what the documents posted by Bloomberg look like.
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rJo5436tVr08/v0
This is real. I very reputable legal site, SCOTUSblog, also reported it.
I am glad I am leaving the US next year. I don’t recognize my country anymore and at 62, I just want to be left alone from all the BS.
This is not the main reason why I am leaving, but one of them. Financially, I will be better off in the Philippines.
I don’t believe there is any way that ERs or ER docs could ever be forced to do this. I would venture to say that the number of emergency physicians in the US who are trained to perform abortions is near zero. Trying to have ERs replace abortion clinics is one of the more asinine proposals I have ever heard in my life. The logistics alone would cripple ERs and entire hospitals.
Contrary to the fiction that is TV medicine, all doctors are not trained in all procedures (sorry, House). The ER doc is not going to swoop in and remove an appendix or perform a cardiac cath, let alone an abortion, which is never an emergency. Delivering a baby sometimes is, but the baby doesn’t ever have to be killed first.
This ‘leak’ I think, is meant to stoke up the pro-death cult to act like they did after Dobbs, or worse, if things don’t go their way, thereby trying to intimidate SCOTUS by threat of violence.
Just my $0.02
Love,
O2
Nor do I.
What I posted was linked to this thread (whose title may be misleading). You could post the Bloomberg article to FR, but it has a firewall, and its title “...Poised to allow Emergency Abortions” sounds like an opinion rather than a fact.
This is a "Life of the Mother" versus "Life of the Baby" issue.
Since actual medical conditions like that are rare, a ruling in favor of the Mother's life is not unreasonable.
However, the next step by the Democrats would be relentless legal and medical pressure to expand - infinitely - the meaning of "Life" of the Mother.
Followed by arguments allowing abortions for the freedom of the mother, which some states will adopt.
I thought it had to do with the life of the mother. I have no problem with that. It’s the only exception I feel comfortable with.
The trouble is that the left is likely to pretend that a 1 in a million chance of death of the mother is the same as certain death of the mother.
That is Texas only exception is the life of the mother. I am only ok with that.
Now why do they strike down Roe and then vote to allow this??
I heard that one of his clerks was the one that leaked the Dobbs decision which is why nothing was ever done about it.
And Sotomayor may even have been involved in the never solved case of the leaked abortion rights Dodds decision.
We don’t know since this is somehow unsolved all this time later.
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.