The U. S. Supreme Court decided in a , 6- 3 ruling , in , Moyle v. United States , on Thursday to shove the Biden government’s attempt to force its pregnancy engagement on pro- living states such as Idaho up to lower courts. The majority of judges agreed that, despite issuing a past keep that , favored Idaho, the situation was “improvidently granted” and will not acquire a merit view at this time.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson did not technically side with the Biden administration’s drastic expansion of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act ( EMTALA ), which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services redefined at the bidding of President Joe Biden shortly after the Dobbs v. Jackson , ruling. They did, however, stay with a leaked edition of their choice when they refused to suppress the bureaucracy’s pregnancy engagement.
In order to prevent institutions from rejecting individuals based on their inability to pay for their expenses, EMTALA was passed in 1986. The law certainly just mandates adequate treatment for the “unborn baby” but also directly does” not prevent any State or local law condition, except to the amount that the requirement , directly , issues with” EMTALA.
CMS, however, claimed that , EMTALA, which on its mouth poses no issue to pro- living policies, was large enough to include pregnancy as a” stabilizing” process “irrespective of any state laws or mandates that apply to certain procedures”.
Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which went into effect in August 2022, prohibits pregnancy except in cases of rape or incest, or if a doctor deems it necessary to save the family’s lifestyle. The Biden administration sued Idaho for its reimagining of the , Reagan-era work despite the fact that Idaho, like every pro-life state, included saving provisions in its common rules.
The Supreme Court granted a stay in January, allowing the life-saving law to be carried out throughout the court process.  , On Thursday, however, the court majority ruled to lift the stay, giving the leftist San Francisco- based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the final say on the matter.
The court did not release a majority opinion outlining the justification for the decision. Instead, the six justices who decided to punt the case provided wildly different justifications in a number of separate, written-and-true concurring opinions.
In her concurring opinion, Barrett, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh, claimed the case required dismissal because” the shape … has substantially shifted since we granted certiorari”.
Justice Elena Kagan praised the court’s decision in her concurring commentary, saying that the court’s rejection of the court’s position” will prevent Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban when the termination of a pregnancy is necessary to prevent serious harm to a woman’s health.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who famously opposed the definition of woman at her 2022 confirmation hearing, sided with the majority but lamented in a separate concurring opinion that the court’s decision was a “delay” rather than the “victory for pregnant patients in Idaho” that she hoped for.
As their doctors are kept ignorant about what the law requires, pregnant women who are waiting in the courtroom continue to be in a precarious position.
Justice Samuel Alito stated in his dissention with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch that he believes” the Court has simply lost the will to decide the simple but deeply charged and politically charged question that the case raises.” Because of the court’s refusal, Alito said,” an important and unsettled question” remains.
There is no justification for revoke the preliminary injunction, he wrote, not even if the Court is unwilling to decide the statutory interpretation question.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar struggled to explain to Alito how a federal law that encourages the preservation of the mother’s and her “unborn child “‘s health should mandate that Idaho hospitals carry out abortions in contravention of state law exceptions during arguments.
Alito confirmed on Thursday that” the text of EMTALA clearly demonstrates that it does not mandate that hospitals carry out abortions in violation of Idaho law.”
” To the contrary, EMTALA obligates Medicare- funded hospitals to treat, not abort, an’ unborn child,'” he concluded.
The Federalist staff writer and host of The Federalist Radio Hour, Jordan Boyd. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University with a political science major and a journalism minor. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
