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.”
Someone also just leaked the spouse illegal alien decision to the rats too. That why Traitor Joe rushed out an EO ahead of it. The SC is not going to save us.
The abortion case documents disappeared from public view. Who knows. One story is that SCOTUS could legalize “emergency abortions” whatever that means. But there is no ruling yet, amd it’s quite possible that that a majority of the justices will not agree to what the media is speculating.
“Almost any doctor would perform such a procedure if it was an emergency AND was required to protect the life of the mother, or at least give the mother a chance to make an informed decision.”
The phrase ‘life of the mother’ is changed to ‘health of the mother’ by the left so it can be widely interpreted to mean any slightest discomfort or annoyance.
Rabbi Dov Ber Soloveitchik, such a towering figure that he is known simply as “The Rav”, thought demand for abortion was “insane”:
...“If the dominant principle governing the logos [“thinking capacity”] is that abortion is morally permissible because only a mother has a right to decide whether she wishes to be a mother, then infants may similarly have their lives terminated after birth.
What if the child interferes with the promising brilliant career of the mother?”..
Putting women in charge in the highest levels of office for one.
If the USSC gives in to outside pressure it will find such pressures redoubled. They would be fools to do so. Even the leftists judges should be aware of how idiotic giving in would be in the long run.
“What if the child interferes with the promising brilliant career of the mother?”..
Make the child promise not to do it again.., under penalty of death.
Ffs 🙄 Put a sock in it. Just one day on here, I’d love to not read 2 or 3 conservative men blaming everything on females. Yes, I am aware that feminazis & woke culture blames everything on males, but conservative women, like me, have been defending our men & all men from attacks for years. Just once, it would be nice to read a similar reaction from yall defending conservative women. A good 35-40% of all females & 95% of conservative women are solid & staunch. I can’t think of any single issue I deviate from conservative men, other than the small portion of yall making snide comments blaming all women for the views & actions of half.
The male/female gender gap is usually 45%/55. It irritates me, as well, seeing slightly more women- 55%- side with liberals, than 45% for conservative; where 55% of males side with conservatives & 45% with liberals. I’m sure pretty much every single conservative woman gets irritated with that. We aren’t talking about apocalyptic differences though. You seem to be forgetting that nearly half of males vote for liberals too.
It’s not as though that slight numerical difference is somehow proof that males are paragons of conservative virtue. It certainly doesn’t justify insulting conservative females by blaming all women for the votes of barely over half. I would say I’m even more avidly conservative than my husband. I don’t just want illegal immigration stopped; I want a moratorium on all immigration. I don’t want life in prison for molesters; I want death.
I read comments like yours on here every day. At a time like no other, we need every vote we can get. The only effect that your type of comment & attitude has is alienating women like me, because we are being insulted. A lot of us resent being insulted. We put up with enough crap from leftists going after us, insulting our intelligence & being nasty. Now, in the last few years, in a place we thought was our home, we insults get hurled at us from our men. When people are insulting you, it doesn’t exactly make you eager to ally yourself with them, join forces to accomplish goals or show up to support the team on election day. Please stop! 🙏
You’re not going to make me back off. Women in politics and with the reigns of power have been almost single-handedly the most destructive force in the history of this nation.
No. Liberal women & men have. Nobody told you to back off. Continue spouting your dogma. You seriously think because you have tentacles (I’m assuming- perhaps wrongly😳)? Anywho, go ahead & continue sounding like a dumbass. I could care less. Real men don’t walk around blaming women for everything. Everybody had a hand in how far society has fallen 😉
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.