...US Supreme Court’s decision (click here) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade. This represents a rate of 15.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age,* and is a 11% increase since 2020,...
The Republican response to women needing an abortion to save their lives is to end the FEDERALLY MANDATED laws and proceed as if a woman has no emergencies due to pregnancy. That is what these lawsuits are about. Idaho and Texas WANT TO CLEARLY end the power of the federal government to decide what is best for the American people from sea to shining sea.
States Rights do not ensure that state legislatures can override federal law when it applies to every citizen EQUALLY in the USA. State Rights are about exceptions to federal law ONLY when the circumstances of the particular state apply. Last I checked women in Texas and Idaho all were women with uterus no different than women in 48 other states. The States have no authority to override FEDERALLY LEGISLATED REQUIREMENTS to ensure the health and well being of every American woman.
Do I have to state the obvious? The Robert's Court is incompetent. Why not leak the pentagon secrets while they are at it? I am sure Trump would appreciate an update for Putin.
In the graph above and the text accompanying it, it is noted the incidence of abortion are increasing since the Trump Supreme Court Political Right Wing Extremists overturned Roe v. Wade. Why? Anyone's guess, but, it is most likely that the extremist right wing states are demanding abortions earlier and earlier so women are reacting to the fear of not having access at a later time. They are basically panicked into acting without fully considering their options.
Trump's Political Right Wing Extremist Supreme Court DO NOT TRUST WOMEN and assign them second class citizen decisions.
June 26, 2024
The Supreme Court (click here) inadvertently posted on its website briefly Wednesday morning a version of an opinion that one news report suggested would for now prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban in emergency rooms.
Bloomberg News reported that the court briefly posted an opinion in one of the two cases about the state’s abortion law and its interaction with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.
The court hasn’t announced an opinion, meaning the briefly posted version isn’t necessarily the final ruling. Bloomberg reported that it got the copy that appeared briefly on the court’s website as the justices were issuing two other opinions Wednesday morning, and a reporter later published the document....
Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) (click here)
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.
Memorandum Summary (click here)
...The court’s three liberals (click here) argued in a concurrence written by Justice Elena Kagan that the court erred when it allowed the state to enforce the law temporarily while the Supreme Court considered the case. The state ban, Kagan wrote, “prevents hospitals from doing” what the federal law commands. The decision “will again give Idaho women access to all the needed medical treatments that EMTALA guarantees.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a separate concurrence joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, made a slightly different point. Barrett argued that Idaho appears to be able to enforce its ban “in the vast majority of circumstances.”
Barrett’s point is that she doesn’t believe there’s a significant conflict between the Biden administration and Idaho because of changes that were made to the Idaho law as the litigation unfolded.
By Michael Macagnone
The Supreme Court (click here) inadvertently posted on its website briefly Wednesday morning a version of an opinion that one news report suggested would for now prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban in emergency rooms.
Bloomberg News reported that the court briefly posted an opinion in one of the two cases about the state’s abortion law and its interaction with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.
The court hasn’t announced an opinion, meaning the briefly posted version isn’t necessarily the final ruling. Bloomberg reported that it got the copy that appeared briefly on the court’s website as the justices were issuing two other opinions Wednesday morning, and a reporter later published the document....
Memorandum Summary (click here)
Pursuant to the preliminary injunction in Texas v. Becerra, No. 5:22-CV-185-H (N.D. Tex.), HHS may not enforce the following interpretations contained in the July 11, 2022, CMS guidance (and the corresponding letter sent the same day by HHS Secretary Becerra):
(1) HHS may not enforce the Guidance and Letter’s interpretation that Texas abortion laws are preempted by EMTALA; and
(2) HHS may not enforce the Guidance and Letter’s interpretation of EMTALA—both as to when an abortion is required and EMTALA’s effect on state laws governing abortion—within the State of Texas or against the members of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and the Christian Medical and Dental Association (CMDA).
June 26, 2024
By John Fritz
...The court’s three liberals (click here) argued in a concurrence written by Justice Elena Kagan that the court erred when it allowed the state to enforce the law temporarily while the Supreme Court considered the case. The state ban, Kagan wrote, “prevents hospitals from doing” what the federal law commands. The decision “will again give Idaho women access to all the needed medical treatments that EMTALA guarantees.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a separate concurrence joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, made a slightly different point. Barrett argued that Idaho appears to be able to enforce its ban “in the vast majority of circumstances.”
Barrett’s point is that she doesn’t believe there’s a significant conflict between the Biden administration and Idaho because of changes that were made to the Idaho law as the litigation unfolded.
