Leak Proves True; Both Sides Angry


(DCWatchdog.com) – In a total embarrassment for the United States Supreme Court, this week’s leak of one of its rulings has proven to be true as the highest judicial body has upheld a lower court’s temporary order permitting emergency abortions in Idaho – leaving both sides in the lawsuit infuriated.

Earlier this week, there was an error in posting the opinion online, after which it was quickly removed, The New York Post points out in a report.

While the case will return to the lower courts for additional review, this interim ruling from the Supreme Court guarantees that Idaho physicians can continue to provide abortions in emergencies for now.

The Court’s decision was delivered per curiam, meaning it was an unsigned opinion that did not attribute the majority view to any single justice.

Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas partially concurring with him.

This led some observers to characterize the decision as a 6–3 split.

This resolution sparked debate among the justices, cutting across ideological lines.

Both Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Alito expressed dissatisfaction with the Court’s failure to resolve the matter based on substantive legal arguments, though they advocated for different outcomes.

The central legal issue in this case revolves around whether federal law, specifically the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), overrides Idaho’s restrictive abortion statute, which only allows exceptions to preserve a mother’s life.

The Biden administration maintained that EMTALA provides a wider exemption to safeguard a woman’s health beyond the narrow limits set by Idaho state law.

Justice Jackson, in a mixed concurrence and dissent, emphasized the urgency of resolving this federal supremacy question.

“If anything, the need for a clear answer to the Supremacy Clause question has only increased in the intervening months. We have granted certiorari and heard argument. We have had ample opportunity to consider the issues. Despite the clarity of the legal issue and the dire need for an answer from this Court, today six Justices refuse to recognize the rights that EMTALA protect,” she declared.

In his dissent, Justice Alito argued that EMTALA does not compel hospitals to perform abortions that contravene Idaho law.

“The text of EMTALA shows clearly that it does not require hospitals to perform abortions in violation of Idaho law. To the contrary, EMTALA obligates Medicare-funded hospitals to treat, not abort an ‘unborn child,’” he contended.

Justice Elena Kagan countered Alito’s interpretation, necessitating what she termed “a brief response.”

“His primary argument is that although EMTALA generally obligates hospitals to provide emergency medical care, it never demands that they offer an abortion—no matter how much that procedure is needed to prevent grave physical harm, or even death. That view has no basis in the statute,” she argued.

Copyright 2024, DCWatchdog.com