Posted on 06/27/2024 8:16:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court punted on a major abortion-related decision in Moyle v. United States by sending a case against Idaho’s Defense of Life Act back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The decision was made after an appeal and dealt with Idaho’s pro-life Defense of Life Act and whether it was preempted by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which the Biden administration claims includes abortions.
The court's decision to send the case back to a lower court restores emergency abortions in Idaho for the time being.
"The decision vacates the previous stay, reinstates the preliminary injunction, and emphasizes the supremacy of federal law in ensuring necessary medical care to prevent serious health risks," reports Simon Ateba.
Ateba adds:
Three things to remember.1- The Court blocked Idaho's abortion law, reinstating the preliminary injunction and allowing emergency abortions as required by EMTALA.
2- EMTALA's requirements for stabilizing treatment in emergencies, including necessary abortions, take precedence over conflicting state laws.
3- The ruling ensures that hospitals in Idaho must provide necessary medical care to stabilize patients, even if it includes performing abortions to prevent serious health consequences.
4- The decision highlights the ongoing legal conflicts between state abortion restrictions and federal healthcare mandates, with potential implications for other states with similar laws.
Unfortunately, this was at least a temporary win for the Biden administration’s aggressive federal championing of killing babies as standard “women’s healthcare,” even though abortion is very physically and psychologically harmful to women, too.
Leftists, of course, framed the case as putting “lifesaving abortions” at risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Cowards.
Agree.
These cowards are hoping for summer vacation to start so they can escape from the few hours of hard work they did.
Disgraceful.
And what happened to the investigation of the leak of the abortion decision?
At first blush, it sounds much like deferring abortion policy back to (or close to) the states where it belongs per Roe v Wade, rather than a national decision. Barrett said as much that they were not qualified to make a local decision.
Then why would they send it back to a district court which is hostile to states’ rights?
And they didn't even do most of the work, their clerks did.
They just rubber stamp the final document.
Supremely disappointed. Again. What is the point of having a majority when the Court squanders every opportunity in the vain hopes that the media won’t some mean things. For “geniuses” they are pretty dumb.
Also, they could take a few lessons from the minority, who NEVER seem to find anything contrary to the goals of the left. The “conservative” / “originalists “ always seem to find ways to undermine each other and common sense.
No, not at all. Fundamentally at issue in this case is whether the recently enacted Idaho Defense of Life Act is preempted by the 40-year-old federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The Supreme Court originally decided that it would take up this issue itself, rather than have the matter decided in the first instance by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Now, the Supreme Court has dismissed the case from its own docket, essentially saying that it should have never taken up the case, given its current procedural posture, in the first place. But this very much remains a federal matter, since, again, the issue of federal preemption is what is in view.
No Sh!t! No wonder we have the highest court filled with a judge who doesn’t know what a woman is, a wide diabetic Latrina (sick), a person who caves in all decisions, a Karen again, a fake conservative woman with a hyphen in her last name just hoping to try and fit in, a Traitor in chief justice, and a gore who bores us because of a lack of a spine.
Only two USSC Justices with a spine and actual knowledge of the United States Constitution.
They just rubber stamp the final document.
We need Congress and Trump once elected again to create a brand new circuit. (12th I think)
California, Oregon, and Washington should be separated from the other states in the new court circuit.
2- EMTALA’s requirements for stabilizing treatment in emergencies, including necessary abortions, take precedence over conflicting state laws.
So The USSC first returned the decision to the states. And now they are returning it to the federal government.
How does that make any sense. They are worthless and evil.
My take: they are throwing irrelevant bones to the Left for the moment, because they are going to drop a bomb on them with the Trump cases.
Saving their powder.
But of course I’m wrong, because the court is absolutely not political. Just ask Johnnie.
This seems like a stupid hill to die for either side inasmuch as there is really no such thing as an emergency lifesaving abortion.
I suppose the left intends to stretch the hell out of the term to include mental health, but it’s male bovine excrement.
Abortion is NOT a federal issue. It is a State’s issue.
still sounds like they don't want anything to do with federal preemption....won't it be seen that way by the general public ?
Media is framing this as a win for Biden since abortions are once again allowed at the Idaho hospital, but I see it as a question being settled closer to home.
the makeup of the 9th "Circus' Court of Appeals moved right during Trump's years to now include some common sense judges, though I doubt it's a "conservative" court. The court should let Idaho residents decide, imho.
Sadly, it’s the correction decision. The case is still in litigation.
“...they could take a few lessons from the minority, who NEVER seem to find anything contrary to the goals of the left. The “conservative” / “originalists “ always seem to find ways to undermine each other and common sense.”
Left-wing: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
Right-wing: “This is not the hill to die on.”
Or perhaps they want doctors to finish off what the abortion pill didn't. After 8 weeks, the pills has complications that cause excessive bleeding --- so do coat hangers. So a pregnant person can just cause enough damage to force doctors to destroy the fetus. right?
Well, the problem to start with is that the Supreme Court took up the case, on the basis of an emergency application filed by the State of Idaho, at the beginning of the year, while granting a stay of the U.S. District Court's original injunction against enforcement of the Idaho law. While granting the petition for certiorari before judgment may have only taken four Justices, I'm thinking that issuing the stay would have at least required five (although I'm not positive about that aspect of the situation).
In any event, if those Justices hadn't wanted to engage the federal preemption issue until the Ninth Circuit had had a chance to rule on the matter, the Court could have simply denied the emergency application to start with. But they didn't, and so here we are.
Where I think things eventually landed is, there are now basically three tranches of Justices. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch wanted to decide the case and were prepared to say that EMTLA didn't preempt the Idaho law. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson were prepared to say that EMTLA did preempt the Idaho law, but they weren't positive they could get two more votes to achieve that result. So Kagan was happy to go along with DIGging the petition, while Jackson, while going along with that, wrote separately to say that, "hey, if it had been up to me, we'd have heard this case now, and I'd have found that EMTLA clearly preempts the Idaho law." She could afford to talk tough, because she knew that the Court was going to be punting the case.
As for Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, at least two of the three presumably had voted in favor of the stay (and in taking up the case) back at the beginning of the year. But now, none of them is too happy about having to pass judgment on the preemption issue. If I had to guess, both Barrett and Kavanaugh are inclined to say that EMTLA doesn't preempt, but they're probably not inclined to associate themselves with the Idaho statute, which they may feel goes just a bit too far in the "pro-life" direction.
And so, with there not being at least two more votes to join Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, the Chief, Barrett, and Kavanaugh exercise the greater part of valor and punt the entire thing back to the Ninth Circuit to decide. And, again, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson certainly won't throw in with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch to go forward now, because they don't have five notes to find preemption under EMTLA and to strike down the Idaho law.
The Court's increasing use of its so-called "shadow docket" has begun to cause nothing but trouble for it. Or, at least, more trouble than the Court is beginning perhaps to think it is worth. As it is, the Moyle case ended up being a complete fiasco, a further indication perhaps that Roberts has lost control of the Court (and, perhaps, the respect of most of his colleague). This was very badly handled from the outset.
"Binky, run these papers on our abortion decision discussions down to the copy machine. Don't accidentally let AP, PBS and CNN see them on the way."
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.