SCOTUS Split Over ER Abortion Mandate

( – When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on the pandemic-era eviction moratoriums, President Joe Biden elected to ignore them. When the justices decided that his plan to erase student loan debt was not legally sufficient, he ignored that too.

When SCOTUS said that the issue of abortion is not a part of federal jurisdiction absent a law from Congress but instead should be regulated by each state in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization the Leftists across the country exploded in a way that at least equaled their [former President Donald] Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

In due course, Biden ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reinterpret the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA) and then file a lawsuit against the state of Idaho, which just so happens to be within the Ninth Circuit of the federal court system (surely that was strictly serendipity acting on behalf of the administration). The issue is now before a SCOTUS that tends to be split along ideological Conservative/Liberal lines on such issues.

Oral Arguments

The District Court ruled against Idaho but stayed its decision so the state would have time to appeal it. However, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals removed the pause which meant hospital ERs and the doctors who work in them throughout the Hawkeye state would have to comply or face the consequences of the HHS edict.

On April 24, Idaho’s Interim Solicitor General Josh Turner and United States Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued their respective positions in front of the nine-person panel and the (perhaps dubious) privilege of answering questions posed by their honors.

The two laws in question are EMTALA on the federal side which requires all hospitals to provide “stabilizing care” for any patient brought into their ERs regardless of their ability to pay. On the other side is Idaho’s DEFENSE OF LIFE ACT which makes it a crime for medical professionals to perform abortions or face 2-5 years in prison and a loss of license, with a few narrowly tailored exceptions where the woman’s life is in imminent danger.

Idaho has argued that just the plain reading of the statute should negate the Biden administration’s attempt to circumvent Dobbs because it requires stabilizing care for both the expectant mother and her “unborn child;” further, they contend that making regulations regarding medical licensing is the purview of the individual states. The feds essentially declared this line of reasoning a bunch of hogwash since EMTALA in and of itself allows the national government the ability to withhold Medicaid/Medicare payments for non-compliant facilities.

After Prelogar presented her opening arguments, the Conservative justices began asking their questions in what appeared to be a fairly organized process of one jurist at a time, according to the hearing transcript. When Turner had to run the same gauntlet, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elana Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor not only interrupted him to clarify a point, they also tripped over each other either trying to get their 2ยข worth in first or perhaps simply attempting to fluster him.

At this time, it is unknown when SCOTUS might issue their decision, but the bulk of them tend to be announced in June. If it should be favorable towards Idaho, let us hope there is no leak of the preliminary draft as happened in Dobbs. If nothing else, that will save the country from a few weeks of having to endure the ear-piercing rhetoric of “The Squad” and other Liberals.

Copyright 2024,