The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Biden administration to require emergency room doctors to perform abortions in medical emergencies under its new interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 .six to three to dismiss the case as improvidently granted and vacated a stay from the Ninth Circuit, which had blocked a lower court ruling allowing the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA to override state law.
he Supreme Court subsequently took the extraordinarily rare step of granting “cert before judgment” — shorthand for the Supreme Court granting review before the appeals court finishes deciding the appeal.in April that Congress did not write EMTALA to require emergency room physicians to perform abortions. Instead, the state argued that the law’s original intent was to prevent “patient dumping,” when hospitals refuse to treat patients who are unable to pay for emergency services.
Justice Jackson wrote an opinion agreeing with the court’s order to lift the stay but disagreeing with the decision to dismiss the case “If anything, the need for a clear answer to the Supremacy Clause question has only increased in the intervening months. Other States across the country have enacted legislation that gives rise to the same sort of legal conflict that Idaho has created. This pre-emption issue is not going away anytime soon and will most certainly return to this Court.
Since then, briefing and oral argument have shed more light on this case than in the nature of things was afforded at the time the Court considered petitioners’ emergency applications. I am now convinced that these cases are no longer appropriate for early resolution. even if there were some ambiguity in the statutory text, we would be obligated to resolve that ambiguity in favor of the State because EMTALA was enacted under the Spending Clause, and as we have held time and again, conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds must be unambiguous.Under the Government’s view, Congress could apparently pay doctors to perform not only emergency abortions but also third-trimester elective abortions or eugenic abortions.
Justice Barrett wrote that those concessions mean that Idaho’s Defense of Life Act remains almost entirely intact. And Ninth Circuit’s decision should be easy, as Justice Alito explained well, that Biden administration’s preemption theory is “plainly unsound.” I remain committed to protecting unborn life and ensuring women in Idaho receive necessary medical care. And I will continue my outreach to doctors and hospitals across Idaho to ensure that they understand what our law requires.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
Source: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »
Source: adndotcom - 🏆 293. / 63 Read more »
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »
Source: NBCNewsHealth - 🏆 707. / 51 Read more »
Source: dallasnews - 🏆 18. / 71 Read more »