Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Lawyer Defending Idaho's Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side
The Lawyer Defending Idaho's Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His SideJustice Amy Coney Barrett famously provided the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. So if you are arguing in favor of an abortion ban, you probably dont want to alienate Barrettby, say, condescendingly dismissing her concerns when she points out that your legal theory doesnt make any sense. Yet that is what Joshua Turner did on Wednesday while defending Idahos draconian abortion restrictions, and much to Barretts evident irritation. Turnerwho represented the Idaho solicitor generals office in the second major abortion case to come before the high court after it promised us in its Dobbs opinion that the court was out of the abortion business in 2022might just have lost his case by repeatedly mansplaining his self-contradictory position to Barrett and the other three women justices. In his toneless, dispassionate telling, his entirely incomprehensible position was just too complex for them to understand. And so he just kept repeating it, over and over. These justices, including Barrett, sounded increasingly fed up with his chin-stroking dissembling on an issue thats literally life-or-death for pregnant women in red states. If the courts male members noticed Turners dismissive attitude toward their colleagues, they didnt care. The gender divide on the court has never been so revealing.
Perhaps because Dobbs was a threat to unknown future women, whereas real women are now being left to hemorrhage, lose the functioning of their reproductive organs, or be popped onto helicopters to receive out-of-state stabilizing care, none of the life-and-death harms being experienced in red states around the country feel very theoretical to anyone who has thought about pregnancy in a serious way. Yet, for male justices more worried about harms to the spending clause, nothing about potentially lethal pregnancies warranted even a moments pause.
Wednesdays case, Moyle v. United States, revolves around a clash between Idaho law and a 1986 federal statute called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (or EMTALA). Idahos abortion ban has no exception for the health of the patient; rather, it criminalizes abortion unless its necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. EMTALA, meanwhile, requires virtually all hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for any condition that could reasonably be expected to put the patients health in serious jeopardy, as well as any condition that could seriously impair bodily functions or organs.
The Biden administration argues theres a conflict between Idaho law and EMTALA: Where Idaho allows termination only when the patient is at the brink of death, EMTALA mandates intervention earlier, to stabilize the patient before she is literally dying, including situations in which she is facing organ damage, infertility, or other serious harms. So the administration sued the state, and a federal judge issued an injunction compelling Idaho to allow emergency abortions to preserve a patients health. Now SCOTUS must decide whether the federal statute limits the ability of states like Idaho to criminalize abortions that are health-sparing but not necessarily lifesaving. And that means slipping into their white coats and stethoscopes and explaining to Americas emergency physicians how to do their jobs without risking two to five years in prison and a loss of licensure for making poor guesses about what stabilizing care involves.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 391 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Lawyer Defending Idaho's Abortion Ban Irritated the One Justice He Needed on His Side (Original Post)
In It to Win It
Apr 24
OP
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)1. I won't get my hopes up. She's still a fanatic.