U.S. Supreme Court rules Idaho hospitals must perform abortions

Michie said:

After mistakenly leaking the decision before releasing the final ruling, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Idaho hospitals must perform abortions in certain emergencies.

The 6-3 decision, issued in Moyle v. United States, means that Idaho hospitals are compelled to perform abortions, despite it being illegal in the state.

The decision hinged on the court’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) that hospitals are required to provide abortions “when needed to stabilize a medical condition that seriously threatens a pregnant woman’s life or health.”

While Idaho law allows abortions only in cases to save the life of the mother, the court now holds that this is too narrow an exception.

Continued below.

U.S. Supreme Court rules Idaho hospitals must perform abortions

The decision hinged on the court’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Click to expand...

Now we're back to "if the mother has the child she will feel bad. Feeling bad is depression. That affects the mother's health".

Michie said:

After mistakenly leaking the decision before releasing the final ruling, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Idaho hospitals must perform abortions in certain emergencies.

The 6-3 decision, issued in Moyle v. United States, means that Idaho hospitals are compelled to perform abortions, despite it being illegal in the state.

The decision hinged on the court’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) that hospitals are required to provide abortions “when needed to stabilize a medical condition that seriously threatens a pregnant woman’s life or health.”

While Idaho law allows abortions only in cases to save the life of the mother, the court now holds that this is too narrow an exception.

Continued below.

U.S. Supreme Court rules Idaho hospitals must perform abortions

The decision hinged on the court’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Click to expand...

Amy Coney Barrett's narrow concurrence reveals the problem. The Federal EMTALA (at least as enforced by the Biden administration) AND the Idaho law both saw the treatment of ectopic pregnancy as abortion. Idaho law banned the treatment of ectopic pregnancies until a woman is in imminent danger of death. The Federal EMTALA (under Biden) demands abortion as the treatment for ectopic pregnancies. The Federal District Court did not have the sense to disentangle the language. The legislature of the state of Idaho then clarified that treatment for ectopic pregnancy was not considered abortion per se and was not banned. But the District Court failed to reconsider. And so it ended up before the Supreme Court. And now it is sent back to the lower courts to clarify.

The three pro-abortion judges voted as expected. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts voted for kicking it back for lower courts to re-evaluate. I think they did that correctly. So a 6-3 ruling was not really 'for' abortion even though it looks like it. It is 'for' the District court looking at it again considering the changes Idaho made to the law.


EMTALA is a 40 yer old law requiring Medicaid treatment for serious medical problems. In the case of a pregnancy it stated: 'requires hospitals participating in Medicare to “scree[n]” and “stabilize” “any individual” who comes to an emergency room with an “emergency medical condition” that jeopardizes the patient’s “health.” §§1395dd(a), (b)(1)(A), (e)(1)(A). And if the patient is a pregnant woman, the hospital must stabilize both “the woman” and “her unborn child.” §1395dd(e)(1)(A)(i).

Biden got hold of this and by executive order ruled that this required abortions be performed. Go figure.

Idaho corrected their language. Biden got more stridently pro-abortion. The District Court has another chance to get it right.

Michie said:

After mistakenly leaking the decision before releasing the final ruling, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Idaho hospitals must perform abortions in certain emergencies.

The 6-3 decision, issued in Moyle v. United States, means that Idaho hospitals are compelled to perform abortions, despite it being illegal in the state.

The decision hinged on the court’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) that hospitals are required to provide abortions “when needed to stabilize a medical condition that seriously threatens a pregnant woman’s life or health.”

While Idaho law allows abortions only in cases to save the life of the mother, the court now holds that this is too narrow an exception.

Continued below.

U.S. Supreme Court rules Idaho hospitals must perform abortions

The decision hinged on the court’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Click to expand...

Are they tubal?

WarriorAngel said:

Are they tubal?

Click to expand...

That was an issue that Amy Coney Barret raised in her opinion. Seems that there is a lot of confusion about whether or not to call the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, a tubal infection, to call that an abortion. Catholic moral teaching does not see it that way but as the emergency treatment for an infected fallopian tube that has the unfortunate side effect of the baby dying. People call that abortion but Catholics consider abortion to be the deliberate killing of innocent human beings in the womb, not the unfortunate but foreseen death of the same due to a needed treatment. Catholic hospitals know the difference.

chevyontheriver said:

That was an issue that Amy Coney Barret raised in her opinion. Seems that there is a lot of confusion about whether or not to call the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, a tubal infection, to call that an abortion. Catholic moral teaching does not see it that way but as the emergency treatment for an infected fallopian tube that has the unfortunate side effect of the baby dying. People call that abortion but Catholics consider abortion to be the deliberate killing of innocent human beings in the womb, not the unfortunate but foreseen death of the same due to a needed treatment. Catholic hospitals know the difference.

Click to expand...

It's not abortion - but for the sake of Democrat speak - it is now called an abortion.
They do wriggle things about to change the landscape.

Michie said:

My own doctor assured me that an ectopic pregnancy does not equate to a procured abortion. Nobody is deliberately looking to kill a child in that situation but save lives.

Click to expand...

Yes.

However; on social media and such the left was 'saying' that it is.

Which is why I asked about this secular situation.

Michie said:

My own doctor assured me that an ectopic pregnancy does not equate to a procured abortion. Nobody is deliberately looking to kill a child in that situation but save lives.

Click to expand...

This happened to me. I did not even know I was pregnant; just thought I was late. When I miscarried it ripped my tube, and I had to have my tube and ovary removed in surgery. A massive mess. The baby can only go so long before the tube bursts...