View this post on the web at [link removed]

Please consider subscribing to help us reach our funding goals in a attempt to inform more Americans…
The Supreme Court has rightly allowed Idaho's abortion restriction law to go into effect, disregarding the objections from the Biden administration, which seems overly enthusiastic about promoting abortion. Additionally, the Court has wisely decided to hear the case in April, addressing the Biden administration's attempt to force emergency room doctors to perform abortions under a questionable interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1986 (EMTALA).
After the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance in July 2022, asserting that EMTALA compels doctors to perform abortions in emergency rooms. This move was accompanied by threats of funding withdrawal and Medicaid participation suspension for non-compliant hospitals.
Following this guidance, the Biden administration took legal action against Idaho, arguing that its pro-life law contradicts the federal interpretation of EMTALA. Despite initial setbacks in lower courts, Idaho has appealed to the Supreme Court, emphasizing that Congress did not intend EMTALA to mandate emergency room physicians to perform abortions.
In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, Idaho rightly highlights:
"EMTALA does not even mention abortion. That statutory silence alone is powerful evidence that Congress did not intend to preempt state abortion laws, particularly given EMTALA’s savings clause."
On the other side, the Biden administration contends that Idaho's law, criminalizing abortion except to prevent the mother's death, is narrower than its interpretation of EMTALA. It's worth noting that Idaho law excludes the removal of a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy from the definition of elective abortion.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case aligns with the Fifth Circuit's earlier move to block the HHS EMTALA guidance in Texas, affirming that EMTALA doesn't mandate specific medical treatments, including abortion.
President Biden, unsurprisingly, expressed dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's decision, portraying it as enabling extreme abortion bans. However, the reality is that this decision upholds state authority in shaping abortion laws, ensuring a more balanced and democratic approach. In contrast, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador rightly sees the Supreme Court's decision as a step toward preventing the federal government's overreach and protecting the sanctity of life, aligning with the views of the people of Idaho.
Please Subscribe To Read The Next Article…
BREAKING: Pelosi Suggests States Can Overrule Constitution and Ban Trump From Presidential Ballot...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?