DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Rulings 2024

The Supreme Court is strarting to come out with some new rulings.

Here is one of the 1st. We can add others.


Supreme Court declines Biden's appeal in Texas emergency abortion case

LINDSAY WHITEHURST and JAMIE STENGLE
Updated Mon, October 7, 2024 at 8:16 PM EDT·5 min read
6.1k


WASHINGTON (AP) — A court order that says hospitals cannot federally be required to provide pregnancy terminations when they violate a Texas abortion ban will stay for now, the Supreme Court said Monday.

The decision is another setback for opponents of Texas’ abortion ban, which for two years has withstood multiple legal challenges, including from women who had serious pregnancy complications and have been turned away by doctors.

It left Texas as the only state where the Biden administration is unable to enforce its interpretation of a federal law in an effort to ensure women still have access to emergency abortions when their health or life is at risk.

The justices did not detail their reasoning for keeping in place a lower court order, and there were no publicly noted dissents. Texas had asked the justices to leave the order in place while the Biden administration had asked the justices to throw it out.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision “a major victory.”

The Biden administration argues that a federal law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires emergency rooms to provide abortions if a pregnant patient’s health or life is at serious risk, even in states where the procedure is banned. The law only applies to emergency rooms that receive Medicare funding, which most hospitals do.

The Supreme Court decision comes weeks before a presidential election in which Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has put abortion at the center of her campaign, attacking Republican challenger Donald Trump for appointing judges to the high court who overturned nationwide abortion rights in 2022.

“I will never stop fighting for a woman’s right to emergency medical care — and to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade so that women in every state have access to the care they need,” Harris said on social media Monday evening.

Texas' abortion ban has also been a centerpiece of Democratic U.S. Rep. Colin Allred ’s challenge against Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cuz for his seat.

At a campaign event over the weekend in Fort Worth, Texas, hundreds of Allred’s supporters broke out in raucous applause when he vowed to protect a woman’s right to an abortion. “When I’m in the Senate, we’re going to restore Roe v. Wade," Allred said.

At a separate event the same day, in a nearby suburb, Cruz outlined a litany of criticisms against Allred, but didn’t bring up the abortion law.

Katie Glenn Daniel, the state policy director of SBA Pro-Life America, applauded the Supreme Court decision and pointed to data showing Texas doctors have been able to provide an average of about five abortions per month to save a patient's life or health.

Still, complaints of pregnant women in medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms in Texas and elsewhere have spiked as hospitals grapple with whether standard care could violate strict state laws against abortion. Several Texas women have lodged complaints against hospitals for not terminating their failing and dangerous pregnancies because of the state's ban. In some cases, women lost reproductive organs.

In asking the Supreme Court to toss out the lower court decision, the administration pointed to a similar case from Idaho earlier this year in which the justices narrowly allowed emergency abortions to resume while a lawsuit continues. At the time the Idaho case began, the state had an exception for the life, but not the health, of a woman.

Texas said its case is different, however, because the law provides some exceptions if a pregnant patient's health is at risk.

Texas pointed to a state Supreme Court ruling that said doctors do not have to wait until a woman’s life is in immediate danger to provide an abortion legally. Doctors, though, have said the Texas law is dangerously vague, and a medical board has refused to list all the conditions that qualify for an exception.

Marc Hearron, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said doctors in Texas got no clarity from the Supreme Court on Monday.

“The health care crisis is ongoing,” Hearron said. “Patients are going to continue to suffer.”

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who has written extensively about abortion, said there remains much uncertainty for doctors in Texas, who could risk life in prison for performing abortions.

“I think we’re going to continue to see physicians turning away patients, even patients who could qualify under the state’s exceptions, because the consequences of guessing wrong are so severe and the laws are not that clear,” Ziegler said.

The Texas case started after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, leading to abortion restrictions in many Republican-controlled states. The Biden administration issued guidance saying hospitals still needed to provide abortions in emergency situations under a health care law that requires most hospitals to treat any patients in medical distress.

Texas sued over that guidance, arguing that hospitals cannot be required to provide abortions that would violate its ban. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, ruling in January that the administration had overstepped its authority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a post on X, “Reproductive rights are under assault in this country and women’s health and lives remain in danger from the chaos and confusion caused by overturning Roe.”


https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-lets-stand-decision-134142024.html

Of course they did. Was there ever a question? pffft Goopturds.

Is this case fully done in the circuit? I don't see anything about en banc which should be the next step after 5CA issues. If there is still remedy available in 5CA then SCOTUS is not going to hear it.

My understanding is that it is not fully adjudicated on the first level of appeal, but I do not say that with absolute certainty.

This court has seemed very reluctant to grant without a fully mature record. That would suggest this less of a story than either side in it wants it to be.

Here's another one


US Supreme Court rejects IVF clinic's appeal of Alabama embryo ruling
Andrew Chung
Mon, October 7, 2024 at 9:55 AM EDT·3 min read


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court turned away on Monday a bid by an Alabama fertility clinic to avoid a wrongful death claim in a civil lawsuit over the destruction of a couple's frozen embryo in a case that has caused concern over the legal landscape for in vitro fertilization.

The justices denied an appeal by the Mobile-based Center for Reproductive Medicine of a ruling by Alabama's top court allowing the suit by Felicia Burdick-Aysenne and Scott Aysenne to proceed after deciding that frozen embryos are considered children under state law. The clinic has called the ruling a violation of its constitutional right to due process.

The couple sued the Center for Reproductive Medicine and the hospital housing the clinic in 2021 for wrongful death and negligence after a patient at the hospital gained unauthorized access to the cryogenic embryo storage area and removed several embryos, dropping them on the floor, including the couple's one remaining embryo.

The Republican-controlled Alabama Supreme Court in February ruled in the case that under an Alabama law called the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, "unborn children are 'children,'" even outside the womb, allowing the lawsuit seeking monetary damages from the clinic to move forward.

The decision prompted IVF providers in Alabama to suspend treatments, while many health advocates and Democratic officials across the United States held up the decision as offered further evidence that reproductive rights are under assault in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision rolling back abortion rights.

IVF, which helps couples experiencing infertility issues, is a procedure in which eggs are removed from a woman's ovary and combined with sperm in a laboratory dish to form embryos. The embryos can be frozen for future implantation.

Republicans scrambled to contain the fallout from the Alabama court's decision, with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump publicly declaring his support for IVF with the Nov. 5 U.S. election looming.

In response, the Republican-led Alabama legislature passed a law, signed by Republican Governor Kay Ivey in March, providing immunity from criminal charges or civil claims to IVF providers.

The clinic told the U.S. Supreme Court that this Alabama law, even though it applies retroactively, does not protect it from the wrongful death suit.

The Center for Reproductive Medicine in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court called the state high court's decision a violation of the clinic's right to due process under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The clinic told the justices that the state high court's ruling is "subjecting providers of critical reproductive services to the possibility of unprecedented punitive damages for the virtually inevitable loss of some fertilized eggs or eventual destruction of unused embryos."

A state trial judge had dismissed the couple's wrongful death claim before the Alabama Supreme Court revived it.

The couple did not offer a response to the clinic's appeal, and the U.S. Supreme Court did not order them to file one.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-rejects-ivf-135533740.html

ANYTHING and EVERYTHING the corrupted SCOTUS does is important until the court is fixed. As far as I’m concerned there are at minimum two corrupted justices involved in the ongoing attempted coop of the US. They should hang. There could very well be 6 corrupt justices, I know Roberts looks corrupt from reporting. So, yep, everything they pull needs to be watched, recorded, and eventually undone once we rid ourselves of the Trumpian/MAGA pestilence.

Of course they did. Was there ever any question?

Anything that supports women's right, their healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies the SCOTUS will vote against. We still live in a world where a bunch of older men who have no uterus demand they have control over every uterus in our nation. Murica! Freedumb!

You forgot to yell fascist too...

Are you supporting Trump, yes or no? It’s a simple question.

Meanwhile, FASCIST TRASH! You happy?

I will vote against Harris.

Word salad.

One of the reasons to vote against Harris.

More word salad. And it's coming from you, not Kamala. What do you call trump lying bout more than 15k Haitian immigrants with legal status by saying they're eating pets and here illegally? It seems as though lying and creating chaos over those lies means less to you than what you call word salad. And of course those 34 felony convictions and a jury finding trump committed sexual assault.

Did Kamala steal your toys when you were a child?

You said two words as though they were an actual point. You might try using complete sentences if you have a particular message to convey, otherwise your fragment is open to the interpretation of the reader.

You are welcome.

Thank you grammar police!

Again, you are welcome. No one has tried to police you, just trying to make you a better communicator in the written form.

Try to keep up. Your post wasn't addressed to me.

Oh, BTW, you're welcome.

You said thank you, I said you are welcome. You mentioned grammar police. I told you there weren't any.

You are welcome for the clarity. I know forums are confusing for people who live in a self generated reality, such as yourself.

At least you have learned how to diagnose yourself. I bet that saves you a fortune in therapy sessions.

I said in my 1st post:
"The Supreme Court is starting to come out with some new rulings.
Here is one of the 1st. We can add others."

In my 2nd post
"Here's another one"

Which of those are you having trouble comprehending?

The point of the 1st one is that the Supreme Court is starting to come out with some new rulings.
Here it is. We can add others as they come out.

The point of the 2nd was that hey, another came out. Here it is.

Not sure how to be more clear.

GOOD. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. I can’t imagine living life with a jellyfish spine. If a man can’t say what he stands for, then he stands for NOTHING. That is you. And to me, that makes you nothing. Unimportant pathetic internet keyboard warrior. Maybe the outhouse ain’t really your bag. If I were you I’d stay out of here, but we know you can’t leave Pit alone that long. No need to respond, I won’t read it.

And the left can't figure out why they are being called commies...

I'm not voting for either of these clowns. If voting 3rd party make me an enemy of the state, so be it. I guess I'll be thrown in the gulag after Nov 5.

They are all about a one party system, much like Russia and China. Stand in opposition you get poisoned or disappear. Now in this country you get shot with pro government agencies looking the other way when it happens.

More childish "I know you are but what am I".

How many "I am not voting for Biden I am voting against Trump" posts were there? Did you get a little stirring acting like a tough guy knowing you can be safe and snug under your blankie?

Read it or not, it doesn't change who you really are.

Not voting for biden, voting against trump is still a vote for biden
It doesn't change who you are it tells who you are
Someone who believes biden is the better choice

Not voting for trump, voting against harris, is still a vote for trump
It tells us exactly who you are
You don't want me to go there

Sure thing. It was all the rage to say "voting against Trump" to not have to say they were really voting for a turnip. But now the messaging has changed.

The only way for me to care less if "you go there" is if I really put effort into it. So please, do whatever you think you is needed.

No, but a superficial, mostly vacant comment like this tells me exactly who you are.

Feeling defensive?

But if trump wins having assaulted a cop on Jan. 6th or trying to overthrow the 2020 election will get you a pardon.

When that's all you got as a comeback it speaks volumes.

Yet many very valid reasons were given for that. Would you like for me to start a list beginning with 34 felony convictions or does that help jar your memory?

On the irony.

What messaging has changed? According to Goopturds, the message is exactly the same, only from a different candidate. No messaging has changed. Pffft.

Bro, after the Biden debate, you went off and said that you were “going to hold each and every one of [us] responsible.” So be careful that you’re not guilty of what you accuse.

I think he's talking about Putin's buddy trump who thinks there's only one party and only their votes matter. Why else would he try to overthrow the 2020 election? Nobody else has done that so he must be talking about trump.