The Supreme Court has dismissed a case that would carve out an exception to an Idaho abortion restriction based on federal rules, Breitbart reported. As the issue returns to the lower courts in the state, the legacy media championed the news before the high court's decision was finalized.
The issue at hand is whether President Joe Biden's Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services EMTALA law requires providers to offer abortion despite state law. EMTALA sets the standards for when it's mandatory to provide emergency care.
This means a physician is protected from the prohibition on abortion if the doctor asserts that "abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve" a medical emergency in a pregnant woman. The emergency room would have to comply with the doctor's wishes against Idaho's law.
The court has decided to dismiss the case not on its merit but rather because the court's review was "improvidently granted" in the first place, as the lower court had not finalized its review. The leftist media championed the dismissal draft, which skewed its coverage.
Although the Supreme Court has dismissed the case and effectively left room for physicians to defy Idaho law, it's not at all the intent. This is an administrative move that didn't touch the underlying abortion debate despite the left's rejoicing.
In fact, these types of dismissals happen a couple of times a year in the Supreme Court. They are often unremarkable and don't garner comment from the justices. However, this case is different because it appears to hand a victory to the pro-abortion side.
Unfortunately for the left, that's not what happened here. The case was dismissed for procedural reasons, though both the left-leaning and right-leaning justices included an opinion with the dismissal, which is unusual for these types of cases.
The opinions expressed predictably fell along ideological lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not want to dismiss the case at all and wanted to instead shred Idaho's law in light of Biden's EMTALA law to provide abortions.
Leftists Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor similarly believed the Biden administration's mandate supersedes Idaho's law but concurred with throwing out this particular review over the administrative issues. However, Justices Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed, calling this move "baffling," Fox News reported.
Alito made it clear in his opinion that he disagreed with dismissing the review. "Recognizing the flaws in the Government’s theory and Idaho’s ‘strong’ likelihood of success, this Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal on January 5," he explained.
"And, wisely or not, the Court also took the unusual step of granting certiorari before Idaho’s appeal was heard by the Ninth Circuit. Now the Court dismisses the writ and, what is worse, vacates the stay," Alito continued.
"This about-face is baffling. Nothing legally relevant has occurred since January 5. And the underlying issue in this case—whether EMTALA requires hospitals to perform abortions in some circumstances—is a straightforward question of statutory interpretation," Alito said.
Alito added that the court has enough information, documentation, and testimony to decide on the underlying question apart from the procedure but has chosen not to do so. "Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable," Alito said.
Abortion zealots will cheer any time there is another move that allows them the right to kill babies in the womb, whether warranted or not. This decision may be a temporary victory for them, but it will not be the last time this issue comes before the court that has already rejected abortion on demand.
