Staff Reports
The Supreme Court just handed the Biden administration a shiny new toy by wiping away an order that had stopped the government from forcing Idaho to allow abortions in emergencies, despite Idaho’s staunchly pro-life stance. The justices decided they jumped the gun in agreeing to hear the case, claiming the facts are still too foggy — maybe they need stronger glasses or just some common sense.
The ruling isn’t without its eyebrow-raising moments. A draft opinion was embarrassingly leaked the day before, showing the court’s cards a bit too early. Not the best of times for Chief Justice John Roberts’ crew, especially since it’s the second time an abortion-related opinion prematurely hit the headlines. Remember the 2022 Dobbs debacle that torpedoed Roe v. Wade? Yeah, history repeats itself.
Supreme Court revives injunction against Idaho's abortion law https://t.co/mCBdfHuWYh
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) June 27, 2024
Idaho took the Dobbs decision to heart, embracing a full ban on abortion, joining more than a dozen states that are putting on their pro-life armor. The Biden administration, ever eager to poke the bear, sued Idaho, whining that the ban clashed with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). Seems like Joe wants to ensure federal laws override state’s rights whenever it suits his agenda.
Under EMTALA, hospitals must treat emergencies, which the Biden team interprets to include abortions if a mother’s health is at risk. A judge and the ever-reliable 9th Circuit sided with Biden, and now the Supreme Court is letting that injunction stand. But let’s be real, the justices didn’t actually decide if the Biden administration’s argument holds water. That’s a battle for another day, and other similar cases are still bubbling up through the lower courts.
The court initially fast-tracked this case, skipping a few steps supposedly to get to justice sooner. However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that they may have been a bit too hasty. She noted that both sides are still figuring out their stances and that EMTALA’s jurisdiction over states has come into question. Classic case of Washington overreach versus state autonomy.
The court is still wrestling with whether abortion counts as emergency care and what rights the unborn have. Justice Samuel Alito clarified that EMTALA requires protecting both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan, representing the Democratic viewpoint, argued the language was meant to ensure women got care, not specifically to mandate abortions. President Biden, predictably, fumed over the state-level restrictions post-Dobbs, making it clear that abortion will be a pulse point in the upcoming elections.
In the meantime, the battle over abortion laws continues to rage, and Idaho finds itself at the forefront, unwavering in its commitment to protect the unborn. The rest of the country watches, noses pressed against the glass, waiting for the next chapter in this contentious saga.
