These assholes sure are proving how “pro-life” they are what with denying women abortions when not doing it will kill the fetus anyway. And the woman. I realize that the woman is just surplus trash, but why do they care if the fetus is going to die regardless?
Oh right, God’s will.
The supreme cunts are hoping women of color who don’t have access to decent health care die.
Erin Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said those financial penalties are “quite severe for both doctors and hospitals.”
Erin continued with “If it was up to us, we would be throwing all of them into prison.”
Erin Hawley, Senator’s wife
“they think the Supreme Court is illegitimate partisan hacks.”
“So? put more wood on that fire.”
<Bret tosses the constitution into the dumpster.>toss…dumpster
Ah, so he boofed it.
Republicans in Idaho asked the Supreme Court to decide whether state bans or federal law take precedence.
This is absurd. Federal law always takes precedence, even if it’s a section of a state constitution versus a law passed by Congress. Period. It’s the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, and it’s quite clear. The supremacy clause doesn’t cover executive order, but this case is about EMTALA, a law passed by Congress.
Now if they want to argue the Biden administration’s enforcement of that law is going beyond the bounds set by the law, that would be something SCOTUS would need to decide. But as far as I can tell they aren’t arguing that. They’re saying if the Court lets the Biden administration require emergency abortions in opposition to state law, then that will let them require elective abortions as well, which is an even more absurd claim since the scope of EMTALA is strictly for medical care when the health or life of the patient is at risk without it.
This is absurd. Federal law always takes precedence, even if it’s a section of a state constitution versus a law passed by Congress. Period.
I’m on the pro-choice side, I don’t think it’s fair to make that statement without mentioning the 10th amendment.
The 10th amendment doesn’t change the supremacy clause. It simply makes explicit what’s implicit in the supremacy clause: federal law takes precedence over any and all state laws and constitutions when they are made in pursuance of the US Constitution, so the 10th amendment clarifies that if it’s not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, then it’s reserved for the states. To invoke the 10th amendment in this case you would have to prove the federal government is acting beyond its constitutional scope, which would require either proving it’s going beyond EMTALA or that EMTALA itself is unconstitutional. They are not making either claim in this case.
