Case apparently blocked for being 'improvidently granted'
A posting has appeared, temporarily, on the Supreme Court's website that suggests the justices are about to decide to reject a new abortion case because it was "improvidently granted."
Reports confirm that an opinion in the case, Moyle v. United States, appeared temporarily on the Supreme Court web page, then was removed.
The court confirmed in a statement that it was posted in error, and the opinion eventually will be announced in due course.
A report from national Right to Life explains the organization was hopeful for a ruling on the merits – whether the federal law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care would include a demand they do abortions on demand.
But the ruling, if finalized, would reinstate a lower court's pause on an Idaho law while litigation continues. That law states that the federal government cannot force physicians in the state to perform abortions against their conscience.
Pro-abortion activists complained about the possible result, claiming "countless" pregnant patients have been denied "necessary care" due to the state statute.
The issue is even around today because the Supreme Court previously overturned the faulty Roe v. Wade ruling from 1973 that essentially "created" a federal "right" to abortion. Regulation of that lucrative industry in America was returned to the states with that ruling in the Dobbs case.
National RTL reported its officials hoped for a ruling on the merits, but the court ruling, if released unchanged, "made clear that this case needs further lower court resolution.
"The state of Idaho had argued that the government’s interpretation of EMTALA [a federal law addressing emergency room care] would render Idaho’s pro-life law nearly unenforceable and would turn hospital emergency rooms into 'federal abortion enclaves governed not by state law, but by physician judgment, and enforced by the United States’ mandate to perform abortions on demand.'"
Interestingly, during arguments on the case, the federal government conceded that it was doing no such thing, that its abortion agenda was not to demand pro-life physicians be forced to destroy unborn infants.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted the "United States disclaimed these interpretations of EMTALA. First, it emphatically disavowed the notion that abortion is ever required as stabilizing care for mental health conditions…. Second, the United States clarified that federal conscience protections, both for hospitals and individual physicians, apply in the EMTALA context."
Carol Tobias, RTL president, said, "The Biden-Harris administration has used every lever at its disposal to push unlimited abortion. The Biden administration has deliberately created confusion and fear by claiming that women cannot and will not receive the emergency care they need. We were pleased to see the U.S. government changing its tune during oral arguments, going on record to state that they are not trying to turn emergency rooms into elective abortion facilities."
She said there remains hope lower courts now will affirm the Idaho law which, "like laws in all 50 states, explicitly allows miscarriage care and treatment in a medical emergency."
Rachel O'Leary Carmona, of the pro-abortion Women's March, expressed outrage, claiming this shines a light "one what is at stake for people across the country as christian (sic) nationalist politicians work behind the scenes to cut back women's abilities to make extremely personal decisions."
For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
