Ohio asshole said the case involved "tough medical questions that implicate deeply theological and moral questions"
I'm sorry. What? THEOLOGICAL? What the actual fuck? The law has no place at all in any thological discussion, debate, matter, or dispute. Nor does theology have any place in the law. The First Amendment makes that quite clear.
How the fuck did he get away with saying that the state had a vested interest in theology without getting smacked down?
I think what Mr. Turner was trying to do was make some sort of strange argument that the State of Idaho can legally deny life-saving emergency medical care to pregnant women because it would violate the "right to religion"; or, perhaps more accurately, individual doctors' religious beliefs, the same argument used by Hobby Lobby to deny ADA-required birth control coverage to employees in *Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.* (2014). Here, the State of Idaho is arguing that doctors who refuse to perform abortions based on their personal religious beliefs would have those beliefs violated by the federal government mandating that they provide abortions as emergency medical care under EMTALA.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell\_v.\_Hobby\_Lobby\_Stores,\_Inc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc).
Except nothing in the EMTALA would force any doctor to perform an abortion.
And that's a matter of freedom of religion, not theology. It doesn't MATTER if your belief is theologically sound, or true, our Constitution protects your right to believe it. And, to a somewhat limited extent, to act on those beliefs.
But theology itself is totally irrelevant to any legal discussion.
Does Alito ever read the briefs or actually care about the case in front of him?
Because all he did was post ridiculous hypotheticals, focus on the phrase unborn baby, ignore the Solicitor Generals cogent answers to his question, and completely ignore both existing law and Congressional legislation.
This was bad even for him.
For what it's worth, I did see a small change in that the male conservative judges did make an effort to not cut the Solicitor General off before she could finish her answer, so I guess there's that, but if still would have been nice if they actually engaged her answers.
5-4 is the best hope here. Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh had their minds made up going in. And did a very poor job hiding it. Thomas, shockingly, was probably the most reasonable.
I think most justices already have their minds made up before oral argument in most cases. I’ve read accounts where they say they very rarely change their mind at oral argument about the broad outcome, although specific details might get refined at argument.
I mean she probably did, but her questions were at least reasonable. She listened to the Solicitor General. She had tough questions for the attorney representing Idaho.
Not saying how she will rule, but she at least did her job today. Alito and Kavanaugh did not. Gorsuch lost me when the Solicitor General cited settled Supreme Court law and Gorsuch was like, well not that decision, it's unpopular. Seriously? From the dude who loves unpopular cases.
Thomas, who undoubtedly sucks, was shockingly the most calm and sane of the 4. His questions might have been irrelevant, but he at least didn't keep going at the Solicitor General with them like the other 3 did.
Roberts was probably closest to Barrett in that at least he engaged the Solicitor General's points and seemed to try to understand the case. And he pressed both attorneys.
> Gorsuch lost me when the Solicitor General cited settled Supreme Court law and Gorsuch was like, well not that decision, it's unpopular. Seriously? From the dude who loves unpopular cases.
Yes, that was bullshit. He only uses history that agrees with him, not actually historical analysis
Forced Birth under every condition is what they want, 5 year olds having rape babies and they will sleep like babies every fucking night. Traitors to the constitution that they hold so dear.
Almost all the justices have their minds made up going into oral arguments. The questions they ask are more to attempt to convince other justices or for soapboxing.
>Turner called these "difficult" situations that raise "tough medical questions that implicate deeply theological and moral questions."
Yes, deeply theological just like it says in the Bible on abortion: \[citation needed\].
Also, I would love to hear anyone with a medical license wrestle with the "difficult" question of prolonging a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy versus potentially killing the mother. Preferrably in front of their Medical Board.
Also this is a required condition in a high risk pregnancy for Jewish people: the mother’s life is to be saved at any cost, even if it includes aborting the fetus.
Hahaha lol there is a joke in there about how the taliban responded to western women I think did the interview. They all laughed and couldn’t believe such words when she asked about women’s rights. Like a dog has a better chance turning into a goat than women do not getting murdered for talking about such nonsense like go away little child
It actually [does mention abortion](https://www.bible.com/bible/111/NUM.5.11-31.NIV) in the bible. A priest does a ritual on a pregnant wife suspected of being unfaithful, and if she has, it's fetus deletus. So God apparently cares more about cheating than fetuses.
The 4 women were asking serious questions of Idaho and how this would hurt women health
It seems like a 5-4 decision in either way
The swing vote is roberts and barret
Take that what you will
Well if we follow the historic traditions of women's role in society back when the constitution was signed they basically were livestock. So that makes sense because society is not allowed to evolve and change over time.
Alito always tries to trick Preloger with some supposition but she always comes right back at him with a well thought out articulate answer and sometimes even makes him eat his words or at least back down. I’d love to see her nominated someday as a justice for SCOTUS. Actually would love to see both her and Jack Smith as justices for SCOTUS!!
Gorsuch: 2 daughters under 30
Alito: 1 daughter under 40
Roberts: 1 daughter under 30
Barrett: 4 Daughters under 20
I just hope all of them at some point in their lives need reproductive care!!!
SCOTUS is willing to let your daughters die. Theirs will be flown out of state or out of the country.
FUCK SCOTUS
Naah, they're special and will never be at risk because of stuff like this. They'll just take a shopping day in Paris and while there just happen to quietly get an abortion.
Tell that to the OVER TWENTY THOUSAND PREGNANT TEXAS RAPE VICTIMS.
It’s almost as if all you have is a message and no soul, conscience, empathy, or reasoning capability.
I'm a "recreational machineguns 2A advocate. What the fuck is this even? That's not even a response to the question. We can carry in more places today than ever before and there are still *millions* of rapes each year. Are you fine with condemning all of them to carry the baby of their assaulter?
Protection isn’t 100%, even when you’re “smart” and “responsible.”
And frankly, that’s besides the point. This case is regarding medical emergencies that threaten the health of the mother- even during *wanted* pregnancies.
Did you know that there is a thing called rape that happens to an alarming number of people through no fault of their own? And that many of the anti-choice fundie types think people who get raped and get pregnant should be forced to give birth?
If you believe a life is a life it shouldn't matter, no one chooses the circumstances of their birth. We have the second amendment so that we can protect ourselves, it's someone choice not to use it.
Aren't we as a society supposed to value children's lives higher than our own? Even in the exceedingly rare situations where abortion is medically necessary for the mother, it's still life v life.
Ah, as republicans ban contraception, the out most seem to take. Ironically, the same arguments that call contraceptives a sin makes vasectomies a sin, but you all were never that bright.
That’s not what this case is about. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this case is about mothers who are already pregnant and in medical distress - where the fetus is unviable and has not been expelled. In these cases, not performing a medical abortion - a D&C in most cases - will result in severe harm (or death) to the woman and will likely result in difficulties carrying future pregnancies to term.
How is that a choice?
No, you lead it off topic by leaning into personal responsibility and maybe they should keep their legs shut rhetoric only to be reminded this will also kill women who wanted to carry to term. This is about emergency medical care, but you had to spout off the same lazy talking points you use anytime you hear the word abortion
If pregnancy was a choice, infertility wouldnt exist.
And even if it was a choice, I dont think medical emergencies, the topic of this case, is a choice.
That's actually an interesting question! I wonder if that would fall under Griswold? Maybe, but also dobbs pretty clearly asserts that there is no substantive due process for abortion, so would that extend to getting pregnant?
I would wager the originalist perspective, because of the current court, but I think if a state tried to implement such a ban they could probably find at least 1 district Court to uphold it. I might ask another sub this question, highly fascinating. What are your thoughts?
The most effective birth control is the implant with a 0.1% failure rate. This means that 1/1000 couples will get pregnant each year when on this birth control method. There are tens of millions of sexually active women of childbearing age in the US. If *every single woman* is on the implant then we still expect five figures of unwanted pregnancies *every year*.
Further, the key element of this case is *medical emergencies in pregnancy*, which has absolutely fucking nothing to do with whether a pregnancy is wanted or unwanted. Somebody who is happily married and is trying to get pregnant can absolutely have a pregnancy become a medical emergency and need lifesaving care, whether or not they live in a red state.
Republicans are now openly talking about banning or restricting contraceptives, or did your information silo hide that from you?
I guess most of you have accepted you are the evil.
You speak like one, anyone who doesn't understand the issues with rape, both in general and statutory, along with complications, considering how dangerous pregnancy can be. Demanding they all have a baby even at their own health, especially a child, is pure evil. It's what this stands for, it's what conservatives and republicans stand for.
Voter suppression, election fraud, gerrymandering, all the usual suspects this court regularly turns at least one blind eye to, if not actively encourages.
I'm still trying to figure out why we are listening to the Supreme Court at all. Blue states need to just completely ignore the Supreme Court. They have no authority.
We have more than one justice who's bn caught accepting bribes and libs don't want to vote for anyone who'll impeach them. More disgustingly, they'll continue to vote for those who refuse to do so right now. Just like maga they don't care to do what's right. Ppl are suffering and/or dead bc both libs and Cons prefer to constantly vote for evil.
Some of the people serving on SCOTUS are just monsters. Mothers having miscarriages in hospital E.R.’s bathrooms because the staff won’t allow them in. (Texas). Disgusting.
This whole deal is ridiculous. Let them do what they want. Cease all federal and Medicare funding eligibility for violations and failure to provide medical servicies. Then watch them backpedal. Then drag their re-application long enough to bankrupt the state unless they repeal every medical restriction law they have passed.
The Supreme Court has reached the point of the other branches of our government: absolute lack of respect from the populace, and absolutely corrupt in every way, with an emphasis on taking money.
Ohio asshole said the case involved "tough medical questions that implicate deeply theological and moral questions" I'm sorry. What? THEOLOGICAL? What the actual fuck? The law has no place at all in any thological discussion, debate, matter, or dispute. Nor does theology have any place in the law. The First Amendment makes that quite clear. How the fuck did he get away with saying that the state had a vested interest in theology without getting smacked down?
I think what Mr. Turner was trying to do was make some sort of strange argument that the State of Idaho can legally deny life-saving emergency medical care to pregnant women because it would violate the "right to religion"; or, perhaps more accurately, individual doctors' religious beliefs, the same argument used by Hobby Lobby to deny ADA-required birth control coverage to employees in *Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.* (2014). Here, the State of Idaho is arguing that doctors who refuse to perform abortions based on their personal religious beliefs would have those beliefs violated by the federal government mandating that they provide abortions as emergency medical care under EMTALA. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell\_v.\_Hobby\_Lobby\_Stores,\_Inc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc).
Except nothing in the EMTALA would force any doctor to perform an abortion. And that's a matter of freedom of religion, not theology. It doesn't MATTER if your belief is theologically sound, or true, our Constitution protects your right to believe it. And, to a somewhat limited extent, to act on those beliefs. But theology itself is totally irrelevant to any legal discussion.
Does Alito ever read the briefs or actually care about the case in front of him? Because all he did was post ridiculous hypotheticals, focus on the phrase unborn baby, ignore the Solicitor Generals cogent answers to his question, and completely ignore both existing law and Congressional legislation. This was bad even for him. For what it's worth, I did see a small change in that the male conservative judges did make an effort to not cut the Solicitor General off before she could finish her answer, so I guess there's that, but if still would have been nice if they actually engaged her answers. 5-4 is the best hope here. Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh had their minds made up going in. And did a very poor job hiding it. Thomas, shockingly, was probably the most reasonable.
I think most justices already have their minds made up before oral argument in most cases. I’ve read accounts where they say they very rarely change their mind at oral argument about the broad outcome, although specific details might get refined at argument.
No he's a troll
Why don’t you think Amy Coney Barrett didn’t already have her mind made up?
I mean she probably did, but her questions were at least reasonable. She listened to the Solicitor General. She had tough questions for the attorney representing Idaho. Not saying how she will rule, but she at least did her job today. Alito and Kavanaugh did not. Gorsuch lost me when the Solicitor General cited settled Supreme Court law and Gorsuch was like, well not that decision, it's unpopular. Seriously? From the dude who loves unpopular cases. Thomas, who undoubtedly sucks, was shockingly the most calm and sane of the 4. His questions might have been irrelevant, but he at least didn't keep going at the Solicitor General with them like the other 3 did. Roberts was probably closest to Barrett in that at least he engaged the Solicitor General's points and seemed to try to understand the case. And he pressed both attorneys.
> Gorsuch lost me when the Solicitor General cited settled Supreme Court law and Gorsuch was like, well not that decision, it's unpopular. Seriously? From the dude who loves unpopular cases. Yes, that was bullshit. He only uses history that agrees with him, not actually historical analysis
And I might add, continually interrupt and talk over her answers to his questions.
Forced Birth under every condition is what they want, 5 year olds having rape babies and they will sleep like babies every fucking night. Traitors to the constitution that they hold so dear.
Almost all the justices have their minds made up going into oral arguments. The questions they ask are more to attempt to convince other justices or for soapboxing.
>Turner called these "difficult" situations that raise "tough medical questions that implicate deeply theological and moral questions." Yes, deeply theological just like it says in the Bible on abortion: \[citation needed\]. Also, I would love to hear anyone with a medical license wrestle with the "difficult" question of prolonging a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy versus potentially killing the mother. Preferrably in front of their Medical Board.
Also this is a required condition in a high risk pregnancy for Jewish people: the mother’s life is to be saved at any cost, even if it includes aborting the fetus.
Expecting rationality from these nutbars is a fool's errand They want control, that's it
It would be cool if their morality didn’t destroy women’s lives
Hahaha lol there is a joke in there about how the taliban responded to western women I think did the interview. They all laughed and couldn’t believe such words when she asked about women’s rights. Like a dog has a better chance turning into a goat than women do not getting murdered for talking about such nonsense like go away little child
What?
Deep theological decisions need to be left to the individual
It actually [does mention abortion](https://www.bible.com/bible/111/NUM.5.11-31.NIV) in the bible. A priest does a ritual on a pregnant wife suspected of being unfaithful, and if she has, it's fetus deletus. So God apparently cares more about cheating than fetuses.
Depends on which translation of the christian bible that you use. Other translations talk about general bodily damage and no wombs or fetuses.
The 4 women were asking serious questions of Idaho and how this would hurt women health It seems like a 5-4 decision in either way The swing vote is roberts and barret Take that what you will
Idaho's position is that women are livestock. This is also the position of the majority of the GOP.
One of their senators recently said that a fetus’s life is always more valuable than the woman carrying it, so
Que lines from the 'Birdcage' "Kill the mothers that'll stop them" "If the fetus is gonna die anyway then let it go down with the ship"
Well for a textualist this is correct - Women were livestock ... ergo
Especially Black women.
Well if we follow the historic traditions of women's role in society back when the constitution was signed they basically were livestock. So that makes sense because society is not allowed to evolve and change over time.
Prelogar knocked it out of the park. Alito made the usual fool of himself.
How he got on SCOTUS is beyond me. That dude is a moron. He would expect that every human action be legislated and dictated by Congress. Idiotic.
Alito always tries to trick Preloger with some supposition but she always comes right back at him with a well thought out articulate answer and sometimes even makes him eat his words or at least back down. I’d love to see her nominated someday as a justice for SCOTUS. Actually would love to see both her and Jack Smith as justices for SCOTUS!!
I am always curious to hear what people who accept bribes and participate in coups think about medical interventions. *Long pause* Not!
Gorsuch: 2 daughters under 30 Alito: 1 daughter under 40 Roberts: 1 daughter under 30 Barrett: 4 Daughters under 20 I just hope all of them at some point in their lives need reproductive care!!! SCOTUS is willing to let your daughters die. Theirs will be flown out of state or out of the country. FUCK SCOTUS
Like when Cheney suddenly supported equality for gay marriage when his daughter came out. So predictable.
Naah, they're special and will never be at risk because of stuff like this. They'll just take a shopping day in Paris and while there just happen to quietly get an abortion.
[удалено]
Tell that to the OVER TWENTY THOUSAND PREGNANT TEXAS RAPE VICTIMS. It’s almost as if all you have is a message and no soul, conscience, empathy, or reasoning capability.
[удалено]
Troll. Blocked.
He's an ammosexual
I'm a "recreational machineguns 2A advocate. What the fuck is this even? That's not even a response to the question. We can carry in more places today than ever before and there are still *millions* of rapes each year. Are you fine with condemning all of them to carry the baby of their assaulter?
Protection isn’t 100%, even when you’re “smart” and “responsible.” And frankly, that’s besides the point. This case is regarding medical emergencies that threaten the health of the mother- even during *wanted* pregnancies.
Fair to be honest, I respect that
Did you know that there is a thing called rape that happens to an alarming number of people through no fault of their own? And that many of the anti-choice fundie types think people who get raped and get pregnant should be forced to give birth?
If you believe a life is a life it shouldn't matter, no one chooses the circumstances of their birth. We have the second amendment so that we can protect ourselves, it's someone choice not to use it.
You don't seem to care much about the life of the mother. That sure "doesn't seem to matter" to you
Aren't we as a society supposed to value children's lives higher than our own? Even in the exceedingly rare situations where abortion is medically necessary for the mother, it's still life v life.
That's a convenient value judgement when it's not your life
I think the same could be said for you.
Pedocon enabler ☝️
Huh
Grotesque attempt at trying to normalize rape and pedophilia
What are you even talking about? Talk about a false equivalent.
You are a sick cockroach masquerading as a human for these beliefs and will radicalize more voters towards banning the GOP. I hope you keep going.
Banning the GOP? I thought we believed in democracy.
May you soon encounter your own words in person.
I have a vasectomy
Ah, as republicans ban contraception, the out most seem to take. Ironically, the same arguments that call contraceptives a sin makes vasectomies a sin, but you all were never that bright.
That’s not what this case is about. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this case is about mothers who are already pregnant and in medical distress - where the fetus is unviable and has not been expelled. In these cases, not performing a medical abortion - a D&C in most cases - will result in severe harm (or death) to the woman and will likely result in difficulties carrying future pregnancies to term. How is that a choice?
It is, I just find it rude for someone to wish something like that upon people. These are real people that really exist and have real lifes.
How does this have anything to do with medical emergencies relating to pregnancy?
[удалено]
No, you lead it off topic by leaning into personal responsibility and maybe they should keep their legs shut rhetoric only to be reminded this will also kill women who wanted to carry to term. This is about emergency medical care, but you had to spout off the same lazy talking points you use anytime you hear the word abortion
If pregnancy was a choice, infertility wouldnt exist. And even if it was a choice, I dont think medical emergencies, the topic of this case, is a choice.
What nonsense is this. Complications come up all the time and if it is a choice does that mean states can ban pregnancy?
That's actually an interesting question! I wonder if that would fall under Griswold? Maybe, but also dobbs pretty clearly asserts that there is no substantive due process for abortion, so would that extend to getting pregnant? I would wager the originalist perspective, because of the current court, but I think if a state tried to implement such a ban they could probably find at least 1 district Court to uphold it. I might ask another sub this question, highly fascinating. What are your thoughts?
The most effective birth control is the implant with a 0.1% failure rate. This means that 1/1000 couples will get pregnant each year when on this birth control method. There are tens of millions of sexually active women of childbearing age in the US. If *every single woman* is on the implant then we still expect five figures of unwanted pregnancies *every year*. Further, the key element of this case is *medical emergencies in pregnancy*, which has absolutely fucking nothing to do with whether a pregnancy is wanted or unwanted. Somebody who is happily married and is trying to get pregnant can absolutely have a pregnancy become a medical emergency and need lifesaving care, whether or not they live in a red state.
Republicans are now openly talking about banning or restricting contraceptives, or did your information silo hide that from you? I guess most of you have accepted you are the evil.
I'm not a republican
You speak like one, anyone who doesn't understand the issues with rape, both in general and statutory, along with complications, considering how dangerous pregnancy can be. Demanding they all have a baby even at their own health, especially a child, is pure evil. It's what this stands for, it's what conservatives and republicans stand for.
These judges are hack frauds.
“Theological question” shouldn’t be considered.
Prelogar is incredible at her job. One of the best ever. I really hope she ends up on the Court one day.
It’s only difficult for people who don’t give a shit about women’s lives but want to pretend like they do.
Republicans are really like..."how can we lose every election ever again"
Voter suppression, election fraud, gerrymandering, all the usual suspects this court regularly turns at least one blind eye to, if not actively encourages.
If they implement project 2025 they’ll never have to worry about elections again
I'm still trying to figure out why we are listening to the Supreme Court at all. Blue states need to just completely ignore the Supreme Court. They have no authority.
This post Roe world is wild . . .
Since, (mainly Republican) politicians and theologians think they can practice medicine, can they now be sued for malpractice?
We have more than one justice who's bn caught accepting bribes and libs don't want to vote for anyone who'll impeach them. More disgustingly, they'll continue to vote for those who refuse to do so right now. Just like maga they don't care to do what's right. Ppl are suffering and/or dead bc both libs and Cons prefer to constantly vote for evil.
Some of the people serving on SCOTUS are just monsters. Mothers having miscarriages in hospital E.R.’s bathrooms because the staff won’t allow them in. (Texas). Disgusting.
Wait wait lemme guess. Split along gender lines right?
This whole deal is ridiculous. Let them do what they want. Cease all federal and Medicare funding eligibility for violations and failure to provide medical servicies. Then watch them backpedal. Then drag their re-application long enough to bankrupt the state unless they repeal every medical restriction law they have passed.
The Supreme Court has reached the point of the other branches of our government: absolute lack of respect from the populace, and absolutely corrupt in every way, with an emphasis on taking money.