more scotus fun

[Aardvark86]

Idaho case regarding whether EMTALA (requirement to treat people presenting in emergency rooms with emergencies, until medical stabilization is achieved) preempts state law precluding abortions. (Idaho should probably lose as to emergent situations).

Soto seems to have abandoned all pretense of actually asking questions of counsel. Lots of focus otherwise on whether the exceptions in the Idaho law are such that an injunction isn't really needed.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Idaho case regarding whether EMTALA (requirement to treat people presenting in emergency rooms with emergencies, until medical stabilization is achieved) preempts state law precluding abortions. (Idaho should probably lose as to emergent situations).

Soto seems to have abandoned all pretense of actually asking questions of counsel.

She asked several times before she called down the thunder. It would help if counsel made an attempt to answer the question she asked.

 

[Aardvark86]

She asked several times before she called down the thunder. It would help if counsel made an attempt to answer the question she asked.

that was a separate colloquy (and as you note) that was so bad even Barrett jumped on the train.

 

[Aardvark86]

interesting exchange with alito and prelogar, where prelogar notes that emtala 'health' emergencies can include mental health emergencies, but that abortion cannot ever be required by emtala as a mechanism to stabilize a mental health emergency

 

[Joes Place]

interesting exchange with alito and prelogar, where prelogar notes that emtala 'health' emergencies can include mental health emergencies, but that abortion cannot ever be required by emtala as a mechanism to stabilize a mental health emergency

Medically and factually FALSE

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Aardvark86]

Medically and factually FALSE

Tell that to the Solicitor General, who was arguing in opposition to the Idaho law.

In all seriousness though, remember, the context is "emergency" requiring stabilization. I tend to think that she's spot on that an abortion is not going to stabilize a mental health emergency. Probably only chemicals will do that.

 

[Joes Place]

Tell that to the Solicitor General, who was arguing in opposition to the Idaho law.

In all seriousness though, remember, the context is "emergency" requiring stabilization. I tend to think that she's spot on that an abortion is not going to stabilize a mental health emergency. Probably only chemicals will do that.

An abortion will "stabilize" blood loss; they don't keep patients in ERs and infuse them indefinitely.

Patients in TX have had to undergo hysterectomies, instead of getting a necessary abortion; these were patients who wanted to be pregnant, but had incurred serious complications.

SC has no business "deciding" medical necessities and issues. None.

 

[Aardvark86]

An abortion will "stabilize" blood loss; they don't keep patients in ERs and infuse them indefinitely.

Patients in TX have had to undergo hysterectomies, instead of getting a necessary abortion; these were patients who wanted to be pregnant, but had incurred serious complications.

SC has no business "deciding" medical necessities and issues. None.

and those are mental health crises how?

 

[tumorboy]

Did I read it correctly in Idaho. Couples are encouraged to get emergency travel insurance. In case an abortion is needed.

 

[BelemNole]

Did I read it correctly in Idaho. Couples are encouraged to get emergency travel insurance. In case an abortion is needed.

Or if you have an ectopic pregnancy...
God only allows certain medical procedures to happen in liberal states.

 

[tumorboy]

Or if you have an ectopic pregnancy...
God only allows certain medical procedures to happen in liberal states.

The legislators that write these laws are soulless ghouls. Having the unlucky situation of a health emergency such as this is frightening, and traumatizing enough. Then add this bull crap of having to travel. And it’s not as easy as simply getting a bus ticket in this situation.

 

[Joes Place]

The legislators that write these laws are soulless ghouls. Having the unlucky situation of a health emergency such as this is frightening, and traumatizing enough. Then add this bull crap of having to travel. And it’s not as easy as simply getting a bus ticket in this situation.

So, you can have a major pregnancy complication, be denied an abortion, and end up with a hysterectomy and never be capable of having another kid, again. Per Idaho law.

No wonder OBGyns are leaving that shithole state in droves. Something like 58 out of 250 are gone now.

 

[Joes Place]

The legislators that write these laws are soulless ghouls. Having the unlucky situation of a health emergency such as this is frightening, and traumatizing enough. Then add this bull crap of having to travel. And it’s not as easy as simply getting a bus ticket in this situation.

SciFri podcast interviewing ObGyns says they've struggled to recruit new ObGyns to the state, and other doctors are passing, as well, because they're either female and don't want the draconian laws, or their wives refuse to move there now.

Like I'd already stated - these states with restrictive laws are going to lose major employers, who will have difficulty recruiting employees wanting to start families in their state. Too risky.

 

[Joes Place]

Add in Idaho to that AZ zone...

 

[lucas80]

The legislators that write these laws are soulless ghouls. Having the unlucky situation of a health emergency such as this is frightening, and traumatizing enough. Then add this bull crap of having to travel. And it’s not as easy as simply getting a bus ticket in this situation.

Read up on the politics of Idaho some time. It’s insane out there. All of the states doing 6 weeks or total abortion ban are ruled by ultra far right religious zealots.

 

[lucas80]

Idaho case regarding whether EMTALA (requirement to treat people presenting in emergency rooms with emergencies, until medical stabilization is achieved) preempts state law precluding abortions. (Idaho should probably lose as to emergent situations).

Soto seems to have abandoned all pretense of actually asking questions of counsel. Lots of focus otherwise on whether the exceptions in the Idaho law are such that an injunction isn't really needed.

Just out of curiosity, is any abortion ever okay with you? What parameters do you approve of if a woman decides to end a pregnancy in consultation with her spouse/partner and doctor?

 

[Aardvark86]

Just out of curiosity, is any abortion ever okay with you? What parameters do you approve of if a woman decides to end a pregnancy in consultation with her spouse/partner and doctor?

Actually you might be surprised at my “policy” views, which in full disclosure are probably informed by the fact that I was adopted rather than killed. While I think they’re morally repugnant killing, from the beginning, full stop, I also think that in a society that purports to have liberty as one of its core values, the legality of it ought to provide some level of choice if that is what the population decides through representative democracy. I also think that “protect the life of the mother” is an easy exception, both legally and morally. Finally I think those of us (including states) who oppose it morally ought to really put our money where our mouths are in terms of social support funding for single new moms.

This is why I think dobbs actually has it about right, and that Idaho should lose with respect to truly emergency care within the scope of emtala, a federal law that preempts state law in some circumstances

 

[Joes Place]

Actually you might be surprised at my “policy” views, which in full disclosure are probably informed by the fact that I was adopted rather than killed. While I think they’re morally repugnant killing, from the beginning, full stop, I also think that in a society that purports to have liberty as one of its core values, the legality of it ought to provide some level of choice if that is what the population decides through representative democracy. I also think that “protect the life of the mother” is an easy exception, both legally and morally. Finally I think those of us (including states) who oppose it morally ought to really put our money where our mouths are in terms of social support funding for single new moms.

This is why I think dobbs actually has it about right, and that Idaho should lose with respect to truly emergency care within the scope of emtala, a federal law that preempts state law in some circumstances

I don't think we should have government regulating abortions.
Because there are too many exceptions and problematic issues that can arise in any pregnancy, at any time, and no care provider should need to stop and think or talk to a group of lawyers over whether they can intervene to prevent further complications from occurring.

Your "exception" here means they can wait UNTIL a women becomes septic, and that's too late. Too many women will end up dying due to delayed intervention. That's the entire point of early intervention and preventive medicine.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

It’s astounding to me that this question has actually reached the level of the SCOTUS. It’s more unsettling that there appears to be a majority of justices that seem to believe that restrictive state abortion laws would negate and forbid the use of emergency treatment for those people whose life is in peril.

Liberty, freedom and privacy be damned.

 

[Aardvark86]

I don't think we should have government regulating abortions.
Because there are too many exceptions and problematic issues that can arise in any pregnancy, at any time, and no care provider should need to stop and think or talk to a group of lawyers over whether they can intervene to prevent further complications from occurring.

Your "exception" here means they can wait UNTIL a women becomes septic, and that's too late. Too many women will end up dying due to delayed intervention. That's the entire point of early intervention and preventive medicine.

meh, regardless of the subject of legislation, there are always hard questions or difficult cases, so in that respect it's no different than any other.

My point is simply that it's a perfectly fair subject of legislation, and not subject to some unique exception. As I noted, the exception i described is an easy one. "Danger to health" is a perfectly fair topic of debate too, and probably where Idaho's law will fail under Emtala. But it's a fair topic of debate on both sides - 'mental health' oriented abortions are obviously a potential avenue for 'abuse' (if that's the right term), just as the SG recognized.

 

[BioHawk]

Trump's lawyers just argued that a President would be immune from prosecution even if he ordered the assassination of a political rival. Do they even realize what they are doing? If the Supreme Court agrees with this, Trump is dead. At least 5 Justices are dead. Those lawyers are probably dead. Or at the very least they are rounded up, arrested, and sent to Gitmo. And thanks to Trump, there isn't anything that could be done about it. It is absolutely insane that they are even hearing this case. Arresting his political rivals becomes basically the only response that Biden can do if they rule in Trump's favor. He'll need to do it to protect himself.

 

[Aardvark86]

Trump's lawyers just argued that a President would be immune from prosecution even if he ordered the assassination of a political rival. Do they even realize what they are doing? If the Supreme Court agrees with this, Trump is dead. At least 5 Justices are dead. Those lawyers are probably dead. Or at the very least they are rounded up, arrested, and sent to Gitmo. And thanks to Trump, there isn't anything that could be done about it. It is absolutely insane that they are even hearing this case. Arresting his political rivals becomes basically the only response that Biden can do if they rule in Trump's favor. He'll need to do it to protect himself.

i won't hold my breath on either the predicate or the outcomes


btw, dreebin is just a huge nerd, but is really really good

 

[abby97]

An abortion will "stabilize" blood loss; they don't keep patients in ERs and infuse them indefinitely.

Patients in TX have had to undergo hysterectomies, instead of getting a necessary abortion; these were patients who wanted to be pregnant, but had incurred serious complications.

SC has no business "deciding" medical necessities and issues. None.

After the whole covid thing cooled down, Joes place finally has another medical issue he can finally use to spread his vast medical knowledge. Where did you go to medical school? I can't remember.

 

[LunchBox50]

It’s astounding to me that this question has actually reached the level of the SCOTUS. It’s more unsettling that there appears to be a majority of justices that seem to believe that restrictive state abortion laws would negate and forbid the use of emergency treatment for those people whose life is in peril.

Liberty, freedom and privacy be damned.

PaRtY oF sMaLl GoVeRmEnT

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

What’s going on today?

Received an alert that the SC could be signaling they’re kicking the immunity case back to lower courts, which would delay the trial until after the election.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

What’s going on today?

Received an alert that the SC could be signaling they’re kicking the immunity case back to lower courts, which would delay the trial until after the election.

Thomas, Alito, and likely Kavanaugh will back Trump either 100% or enough to muck up a 2024 trial.

The four women justices will back Smith.

Roberts and Gorsuch - who knows?

 

[biggreydogs]

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I think the Supreme Court should be referred to as the Scrotus.

 

[Aardvark86]

View embedded media

i don't think that was clear at all.

 

[Joes Place]

Trump's lawyers just argued that a President would be immune from prosecution even if he ordered the assassination of a political rival. Do they even realize what they are doing? If the Supreme Court agrees with this, Trump is dead. At least 5 Justices are dead. Those lawyers are probably dead. Or at the very least they are rounded up, arrested, and sent to Gitmo. And thanks to Trump, there isn't anything that could be done about it. It is absolutely insane that they are even hearing this case. Arresting his political rivals becomes basically the only response that Biden can do if they rule in Trump's favor. He'll need to do it to protect himself.

Like I'd posted a while ago: Biden should have filed an amicus, that he will kill off all the Right-leaning justices and pardon himself, if they rule he has immunity to do it.

That they are entertaining this nonsense speaks to how unfit most of them are to be on the Court.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

The prosecutions all took too long to get started.

 

[BioHawk]

The prosecutions all took too long to get started.

The only logical explanation I can think of is Biden put having Trump as his opponent above all other factors. He is gambling that he will win in November and it won't matter when the trials actually take place. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks he can gain significant seats in Congress as a result of a Trump Presidency as well. It is the only explanation as to why Trump isn't already behind bars.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

The only logical explanation I can think of is Biden put having Trump as his opponent above all other factors. He is gambling that he will win in November and it won't matter when the trials actually take place. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks he can gain significant seats in Congress as a result of a Trump Presidency as well. It is the only explanation as to why Trump isn't already behind bars.

I doubt very much Biden is doing anything about this, the optics if it were ever found out would be incredibly damaging to the office.

Trump level damaging, and we all know we don't need any more of that bullsh!t.

 

[goldmom]

Or if you have an ectopic pregnancy...
God only allows certain medical procedures to happen in liberal states.

Glad my ruptured ectopic was 40 years ago.
😡 And that I don’t live in Idaho.

 

[lucas80]

Actually you might be surprised at my “policy” views, which in full disclosure are probably informed by the fact that I was adopted rather than killed. While I think they’re morally repugnant killing, from the beginning, full stop, I also think that in a society that purports to have liberty as one of its core values, the legality of it ought to provide some level of choice if that is what the population decides through representative democracy. I also think that “protect the life of the mother” is an easy exception, both legally and morally. Finally I think those of us (including states) who oppose it morally ought to really put our money where our mouths are in terms of social support funding for single new moms.

This is why I think dobbs actually has it about right, and that Idaho should lose with respect to truly emergency care within the scope of emtala, a federal law that preempts state law in some circumstances

Kudos for the bolded part. We see it clearly here in Iowa as our current leadership pushes for more births, but strips away the safety net. Born to poor circumstances, or to a 14 year old not prepped to handle being a mom? You figure it out. We gave you the chance.

 

[goldmom]

I don't think we should have government regulating abortions.
Because there are too many exceptions and problematic issues that can arise in any pregnancy, at any time, and no care provider should need to stop and think or talk to a group of lawyers over whether they can intervene to prevent further complications from occurring.

Your "exception" here means they can wait UNTIL a women becomes septic, and that's too late. Too many women will end up dying due to delayed intervention. That's the entire point of early intervention and preventive medicine.

Sit down, Joe….We agree.
Don’t faint.

 

[lucas80]

I'll throw this randomly in this thread. Mrs. Lucas often mentions her maternal grandmother. She has five living siblings, and I knew from family gathering chatter that two siblings died before reaching the age of 2. Mrs. Lucas told me recently that according to her mom that grandma had 3 miscarriages, and shockingly the priest in their small, rural Indiana parish told grandpa he needed to get fixed. All of the pregnancies had occurred within a 12 year span, and her body was wrecked. The official doctrine was no birth control, but the priest told grandpa they were risking death with more pregnancies. Miscarriages can be. very tough in a place like IC even today with all of our health care. Imagine being in rural Indiana an hour from a hospital in the early 1960s with a doctor who probably doesn't know much about lady parts.
The MIL isn't convinced that grandma didn't have more miscarriages because she is the oldest child, and she was born 5 years into the marriage. Thank goodness for that priest seeing behind doctrine.

 

[BioHawk]

I doubt very much Biden is doing anything about this, the optics if it were ever found out would be incredibly damaging to the office.

Trump level damaging, and we all know we don't need any more of that bullsh!t.

I actually think that is less damaging to him than the idea of having an AG who just wants it to all go away, even if that means the Supreme Court eliminates our Constitutional Democracy in the process, and Biden just being cool with that. But you are probably right.