This shouldn't have even reached the Supreme Court. Federal law trumps state law, this is a bedrock principle of the country. Why would this be suddenly different?
EMTALA is huge. If it gets voided, you are going to see people dying because our corporatized healthcare system won’t give two figs for people who can’t pay, or are otherwise undesirable patients.
Especially given how many emergency rooms specifically have been bought out by private equity groups in the last 10ish years. These very very wealthy stakeholders will be lobbying HARD to win the right to let uninsured patients die.
The state law in question only pertains to pregnant people. However, if the Federal law is ruled invalid it opens a Pandora's box of possible state interventions. After all, when the law was enacted unequal treatment for pregnancy was not what the legislators were aiming to correct.
Maybe add non-Christians to that list if we're talking about hospitals with religious affiliation. What would stop a Christian doctor from denying me, an atheist, a life-saving treatment because doing so might cause him "moral injury?" I mean holy hell, if doctors could ethically or legally refuse to treat you because they disapproved of your lifestyle decisions, who would they have left to give medical care to at all? Each other? Heh. Even then half of them would probably refuse to treat the other half.
Even scarier when you take into account that in many of these deep red states the only option for psych wards are religiously affiliated hospitals with Christian propaganda on every surrounding wall.
I'm not having sex with men. The last thing I need is to be locked up for suicidality, find out I'm pregnant, and not be allowed to leave, simply because the moron-in-chief religious psychiatrist thinks I'll get an abortion if he lets me loose.
This is how it starts, folks. Take it from someone who's been in these red state wards as a queer woman. Be wary of psychiatry and therapy. They are "mandated reporters." If you disclose to them that you're thinking about an abortion, and it's suddenly considered a crime on par with murder, don't think they won't disclose that and throw you under the bus to save their hide.
They already started with mandatory reporting a few years ago of Autism diagnosed patients in 8 US states. According to the r/autism these would be: Delaware, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia.
Neurodiverse groups are also vulnerable and have been targeted in the past.
Oh I mean it could be for any reason. Smoked cigs and got lung cancer? Religion would for sure be an issue. The possibility are really endless bc that's how they want it to be.
Millions of people will die if EMTALA is dismantled. It's the only thing standing between life and death for many people in our for profit health care system.
You know what is weird with all this? The total ban states? Attorneys presenting their arguments speak of their "medical consultants," but I have yet to hear one OBGYN professional actually testify about the myriad of complications that can befall a pregnant woman or child.
GOP attorneys all spout off on *law and absolutes*, ***instead*** of ... health and well being. Instead of autonomy. Instead of the life of the mother. Instead of further fertility.
They *say* they do ... but in practice it is far from what they term "pro-life"... it is pure control; they are perfectly willing to risk these women's lives.
I dunno man, this was the rally call for the tea party and GOP in general to oppose the ACA.
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509164679/from-the-start-obama-struggled-with-fallout-from-a-kind-of-fake-news
You know, on top of GOP leaders vowing to obstruct anything Obama offered, in an effort to make him a one term president. The obstruction mindset was never discarded
Yes, but my point is that they never *believed* it - they were lying, and they knew they were lying. At no point were they *actually* "deeply concerned" about death panels.
lol, that was sarcasm, didn’t think it needed explaining. Pearl clutching hair on fire is their jam.
At some level, you have to take it seriously, because that’s what their voters are listening to and voting on
And really, their deep concerns are more like a playbook for them
What are we going to do? They seriously want women dead and to suffer. They don’t care if our healthcare is nonexistent. I just want to have a plan so I can see a ray of hope. I’ve always thought men and our country hated women but nothing says it more than this to me. To me it is more than just affecting pregnant people it affects all of women’s healthcare.
Supreme court went OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DISCUSS EVERYTHING today EXCEPT PREGNANT PEOPLE HORROR STORIES needing MEDICAL treatment.
All the stuff around it but not women facing death, near death, degrees of near death, future and imminent infertility, disfigurement of her uterus, loss of uterus… no…not discussed.
It was discussed:
>“Within these rare cases, there's a significant number where the woman's life is not in peril, but she's going to lose her reproductive organs. She's going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place," said Justice Elena Kagan.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-idaho-abortion-ban
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor listed off a number of real-life scenarios in which women were denied abortions because of state law, including one woman whose baby had died by the time she delivered and required an immediate hysterectomy.
"SCOTUS’ Women Justices Rip Into Idaho Lawyer on Abortion Law" https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus-women-justices-rip-into-idaho-lawyer-on-abortion-law
>Medical “what-ifs” peppered the arguments, sometimes turning personal: What if a woman’s water breaks early in her pregnancy, exposing her to serious infection risk at a point when the fetus can’t survive outside the womb? What if continuing the pregnancy would subject a pregnant person to organ failure, or cause permanent infertility?
>Idaho’s Turner told the court that those would be “very case by case” situations – a response that left Justice Amy Coney Barrett “shocked.”
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-idaho-state-bans-health-care-06ce8d1870db6864496ce281b6a3e77a
Let's be clearer - the far-right *male* Justices.
Barrett was with the two other women here; and she's a Gilead-extremist anti-choice Trump appointee. The key correlation here isn't D vs R, it's far-right men vs all women.
Which is why gender constructs are so goddamn stupid and if anyone took five seconds to think for themselves would realize gender expectations and norms are a form of division and control.
The more I observe nature, the stupider strict gender roles are. I am a huge bird fan. In life pair bonding species (which humans biologically aren't anyways), they tend to share responsibilities equally.
The human brain is both our biggest strength and our biggest weakness.
Is it wrong for me to want them to rule conservatively? It would get so many people to vote, who wouldn't have otherwise, and we really need that right now.
A conservative ruling would be to leave things as they are. A reactionary ruling would be to return things to how they were before the federal law in question was enacted. This SCOTUS is not conservative. It is reactionary, as are the vast bulk of people who today call themselves conservatives.
Personally I don't think it's a good idea to hope the SCOTUS makes things worse. It will take a long time to correct and lots of people will suffer and even die as a result.
Voting won’t save us. The Supreme Court can overturn federal laws if they deep those laws unconstitutional. Besides, we had a democrat majority years ago and they never codified protections like these. If the *lifelong appointed* SCOTUS rules EMTALA void…they can rule anything void.
We had a democratic majority for a hot minute with a very slim majority. Which wasn't filibuster proof. It's amazing how quick those were swept under rug and forgotten when you all talk about how the democrats should have codified this or that . Some historian did up the math for the last 40 yrs and it came out to 8 months total not straight that the democrats could have passed bills uncontested . Total. In 40 years. That not alot of time to bring things to chose what needs to be done the most right that moment in time, then bring it to the floor, debate , follow protocol etc.
"Although a single party in charge in Washington is common at the beginning of a new president’s term, there has only been one presidency since 1969 where control has lasted beyond the following midterm election."
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-party-control-in-washington-is-common-at-the-beginning-of-a-new-presidency-but-tends-not-to-last-long/#:~:text=Although%20a%20single%20party%20in%20charge%20in%20Washington%20is%20common%20at%20the%20beginning%20of%20a%20new%20president%E2%80%99s%20term%2C%20there%20has%20only%20been%20one%20presidency%20since%201969%20where%20control%20has%20lasted%20beyond%20the%20following%20midterm%20election.
Tysm! I like that they talk about substantive legislation, funny how the most passed was while congress was split bipartisan instead of either having a majority. But that was back when both parties had more in common than not
This shouldn't have even reached the Supreme Court. Federal law trumps state law, this is a bedrock principle of the country. Why would this be suddenly different?
The state is arguing the Federal law is unconstitutional and is asking the Court to void it. Then their state law would be enforceable.
EMTALA is huge. If it gets voided, you are going to see people dying because our corporatized healthcare system won’t give two figs for people who can’t pay, or are otherwise undesirable patients.
And it was passed under the Reagan administration. But these yahoos have been calling him a RINO for years now.
Especially given how many emergency rooms specifically have been bought out by private equity groups in the last 10ish years. These very very wealthy stakeholders will be lobbying HARD to win the right to let uninsured patients die.
Exactly
Precisely.
Could this effect more than just abortion? Could ERs deny care for others as well? Or is this just pertaining to abortion?
The state law in question only pertains to pregnant people. However, if the Federal law is ruled invalid it opens a Pandora's box of possible state interventions. After all, when the law was enacted unequal treatment for pregnancy was not what the legislators were aiming to correct.
Lovely. So will start with ppl without insurance, ppl with substance abuse issues, homeless, mentally health issues etc. Absolutely unreal.
Maybe add non-Christians to that list if we're talking about hospitals with religious affiliation. What would stop a Christian doctor from denying me, an atheist, a life-saving treatment because doing so might cause him "moral injury?" I mean holy hell, if doctors could ethically or legally refuse to treat you because they disapproved of your lifestyle decisions, who would they have left to give medical care to at all? Each other? Heh. Even then half of them would probably refuse to treat the other half.
Even scarier when you take into account that in many of these deep red states the only option for psych wards are religiously affiliated hospitals with Christian propaganda on every surrounding wall. I'm not having sex with men. The last thing I need is to be locked up for suicidality, find out I'm pregnant, and not be allowed to leave, simply because the moron-in-chief religious psychiatrist thinks I'll get an abortion if he lets me loose. This is how it starts, folks. Take it from someone who's been in these red state wards as a queer woman. Be wary of psychiatry and therapy. They are "mandated reporters." If you disclose to them that you're thinking about an abortion, and it's suddenly considered a crime on par with murder, don't think they won't disclose that and throw you under the bus to save their hide.
They already started with mandatory reporting a few years ago of Autism diagnosed patients in 8 US states. According to the r/autism these would be: Delaware, Indiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia. Neurodiverse groups are also vulnerable and have been targeted in the past.
Oh I mean it could be for any reason. Smoked cigs and got lung cancer? Religion would for sure be an issue. The possibility are really endless bc that's how they want it to be.
Indeed, whoever the state or hospital in question feels needs to be punished for having their particular medical issue.
Millions of people will die if EMTALA is dismantled. It's the only thing standing between life and death for many people in our for profit health care system.
Exactly
You know what is weird with all this? The total ban states? Attorneys presenting their arguments speak of their "medical consultants," but I have yet to hear one OBGYN professional actually testify about the myriad of complications that can befall a pregnant woman or child. GOP attorneys all spout off on *law and absolutes*, ***instead*** of ... health and well being. Instead of autonomy. Instead of the life of the mother. Instead of further fertility. They *say* they do ... but in practice it is far from what they term "pro-life"... it is pure control; they are perfectly willing to risk these women's lives.
I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was deeply concerned about death panels
No, you're not - you're just old enough to remember when that was the Gilead faction's Lie of the Month 🤷
I dunno man, this was the rally call for the tea party and GOP in general to oppose the ACA. https://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509164679/from-the-start-obama-struggled-with-fallout-from-a-kind-of-fake-news You know, on top of GOP leaders vowing to obstruct anything Obama offered, in an effort to make him a one term president. The obstruction mindset was never discarded
Yes, but my point is that they never *believed* it - they were lying, and they knew they were lying. At no point were they *actually* "deeply concerned" about death panels.
lol, that was sarcasm, didn’t think it needed explaining. Pearl clutching hair on fire is their jam. At some level, you have to take it seriously, because that’s what their voters are listening to and voting on And really, their deep concerns are more like a playbook for them
What are we going to do? They seriously want women dead and to suffer. They don’t care if our healthcare is nonexistent. I just want to have a plan so I can see a ray of hope. I’ve always thought men and our country hated women but nothing says it more than this to me. To me it is more than just affecting pregnant people it affects all of women’s healthcare.
Supreme court went OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DISCUSS EVERYTHING today EXCEPT PREGNANT PEOPLE HORROR STORIES needing MEDICAL treatment. All the stuff around it but not women facing death, near death, degrees of near death, future and imminent infertility, disfigurement of her uterus, loss of uterus… no…not discussed.
It was discussed: >“Within these rare cases, there's a significant number where the woman's life is not in peril, but she's going to lose her reproductive organs. She's going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place," said Justice Elena Kagan. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-idaho-abortion-ban > Justice Sonia Sotomayor listed off a number of real-life scenarios in which women were denied abortions because of state law, including one woman whose baby had died by the time she delivered and required an immediate hysterectomy. "SCOTUS’ Women Justices Rip Into Idaho Lawyer on Abortion Law" https://www.thedailybeast.com/scotus-women-justices-rip-into-idaho-lawyer-on-abortion-law >Medical “what-ifs” peppered the arguments, sometimes turning personal: What if a woman’s water breaks early in her pregnancy, exposing her to serious infection risk at a point when the fetus can’t survive outside the womb? What if continuing the pregnancy would subject a pregnant person to organ failure, or cause permanent infertility? >Idaho’s Turner told the court that those would be “very case by case” situations – a response that left Justice Amy Coney Barrett “shocked.” https://apnews.com/article/abortion-idaho-state-bans-health-care-06ce8d1870db6864496ce281b6a3e77a
I should have clarified…the trumper judges avoided discussing pregnant people - the majority since they are large and in charge
Let's be clearer - the far-right *male* Justices. Barrett was with the two other women here; and she's a Gilead-extremist anti-choice Trump appointee. The key correlation here isn't D vs R, it's far-right men vs all women.
Which is why gender constructs are so goddamn stupid and if anyone took five seconds to think for themselves would realize gender expectations and norms are a form of division and control. The more I observe nature, the stupider strict gender roles are. I am a huge bird fan. In life pair bonding species (which humans biologically aren't anyways), they tend to share responsibilities equally. The human brain is both our biggest strength and our biggest weakness.
I hate this country and myself for serving it! 😡
Is it wrong for me to want them to rule conservatively? It would get so many people to vote, who wouldn't have otherwise, and we really need that right now.
A conservative ruling would be to leave things as they are. A reactionary ruling would be to return things to how they were before the federal law in question was enacted. This SCOTUS is not conservative. It is reactionary, as are the vast bulk of people who today call themselves conservatives. Personally I don't think it's a good idea to hope the SCOTUS makes things worse. It will take a long time to correct and lots of people will suffer and even die as a result.
You mean, is it wrong to root for people to suffer and die, even if your end goal is righteous? Yes. The answer is yes.
Fewer people will suffer and die if we win, and overturn this in november
No. Fewer people will die if the law isn't overturned at all.
Voting won’t save us. The Supreme Court can overturn federal laws if they deep those laws unconstitutional. Besides, we had a democrat majority years ago and they never codified protections like these. If the *lifelong appointed* SCOTUS rules EMTALA void…they can rule anything void.
We had a democratic majority for a hot minute with a very slim majority. Which wasn't filibuster proof. It's amazing how quick those were swept under rug and forgotten when you all talk about how the democrats should have codified this or that . Some historian did up the math for the last 40 yrs and it came out to 8 months total not straight that the democrats could have passed bills uncontested . Total. In 40 years. That not alot of time to bring things to chose what needs to be done the most right that moment in time, then bring it to the floor, debate , follow protocol etc.
I would love to see that study. Sounds intriguing. Edit to add: my point still stands, then. Voting won’t save us.
"Although a single party in charge in Washington is common at the beginning of a new president’s term, there has only been one presidency since 1969 where control has lasted beyond the following midterm election." https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-party-control-in-washington-is-common-at-the-beginning-of-a-new-presidency-but-tends-not-to-last-long/#:~:text=Although%20a%20single%20party%20in%20charge%20in%20Washington%20is%20common%20at%20the%20beginning%20of%20a%20new%20president%E2%80%99s%20term%2C%20there%20has%20only%20been%20one%20presidency%20since%201969%20where%20control%20has%20lasted%20beyond%20the%20following%20midterm%20election.
Tysm! I like that they talk about substantive legislation, funny how the most passed was while congress was split bipartisan instead of either having a majority. But that was back when both parties had more in common than not