126
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor questioned Wednesday when Idaho’s extreme law would allow emergency abortion care

The women on the Supreme Court appeared to band together Wednesday during oral arguments in a case out of Idaho that could shape how hospitals in Republican-led states respond to life-threatening pregnancy complications.

Even conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic abortion opponent, had some fierce inquiries for Idaho Solicitor General Joshua Turner, who refused to specify what medical conditions qualify for emergency abortions.

“Counsel, I’m kind of shocked actually because I thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered. And you’re now saying they’re not?” Barrett said.

Wednesday’s case involves a ruling on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, a Reagan-era law that bars hospitals that accept Medicare from turning away anybody suffering from a medical emergency, requiring they provide stabilizing treatment or safe transport to a facility if they are unable to perform the procedure.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 59 points 2 months ago

Did the leopard just eat Barret’s face?

Are leopards cannibals?

[-] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago

The problem with medical exemptions is that doctors aren’t trained nor certified to interpret legalese.

So even if the law is fairly clear, it’s just not useful

[-] [email protected] 52 points 2 months ago

The law is written on a false non medical premise, so it's not possible for any doctor to interpret because it's nonsense divorced from reality.

There is no such thing as some clear line in medicine between, ah now instead of just grievous injury she will certainly die without an abortion at this point so let's do it now and she'll be fine. There may be black and whites at some extreme ends, but mostly there's just a spectrum of constantly changing grey probabilities.

This is all total fiction that exists only in the head of pro lifers and the people writing these laws. Even if that fiction was reality, there's a non zero chance that prosecutors will harass people performing abortions anyways, and they'll bring in their own hack experts saying no that abortion wasn't necessary, and the judgement is done by a jury of lay people not doctors with medical expertise, good chance the doctors get thrown in jail anyways in this fictional universe pro lifers have created.

There's just no practical reality where a law that only "protects life of the mother" can exist. Legislators need to stay out of the doctors office and let pregnant individuals make the decisions with the assistance of doctors, only then can the life and health of the mother actually be protected.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

💯….. ^ read what this guy said.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
126 points (99.2% liked)

News

21860 readers
3450 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS