Politics
Opinion: If you were relieved by the Supreme Court's abortion rulings this term, think again
Emergency access to abortion has been a flashpoint in the chaotic aftermath of the Supreme Court’s overturning of the right to terminate a pregnancy in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022.
Can states deny women the care they need to preserve their health in the aftermath of Dobbs, or does federal law provide some protection for patients?
In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases testing whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act — or EMTALA — could override Idaho’s strict state abortion ban. Idaho has some of the narrowest exceptions to its ban in the nation — allowing doctors to intervene only when there was a threat to the life, not health, of the patient. The Biden administration argued that the federal law provided broader protection — and trumped the state’s ban. But on Thursday, the justices decided they had taken up the issue too soon, dismissing the cases as “improvidently granted” and sending them back to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In practical terms, Thursday’s ruling means that a district court order in Idaho that agreed with the administration about EMTALA went back into effect: Emergency access to abortion will be protected in the state, at least for the time being.
It may seem at first that abortion supporters should be happy. The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority agreed to hear two major abortion cases in a single term. And yet with Thursday’s ruling, and the court’s earlier decision that maintained wide access to mifepristone, a drug used in more than half of abortions nationwide, things didn’t get worse for reproductive rights.
The truth is that the court’s Idaho ruling is its own kind of disaster. It will increase the confusion and chaos women face when they need an emergency termination in states that ban all or most abortions. And the decision contains important clues about what could happen when or if the justices get another chance at these issues. The bottom line is simple: Don’t expect the Supreme Court to come to the rescue of women who find themselves in dire need of an abortion.
In theory, every state that severely limits or bans abortion has some kind of exception for threats to the life or health of the patient, but many of those exceptions are narrowly drawn and hard to understand. In addition, states impose unprecedented penalties on physicians who perform abortions that don’t fall under an exception — including, in some cases, life in prison. For these reasons, physicians have been reluctant to intervene, even when a patient may qualify under an exception.
States have scrambled to offer clarity, with some legislatures or medical boards adding explicit examples of when certain abortions may be performed, but these moves have only amplified the confusion. If an emergency condition doesn’t appear on a state’s list, does that automatically mean that a physician can’t act? Are there state or federal constitutional limits on denying access to patients who may die or suffer severe and permanent health damage? And what role, if any, does EMTALA play? The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that none of these questions will be fully answered in the short term, and patients will be the ones to pay the price.
The “improvidently granted” ruling split the court into three three-justice factions, with a center-right bloc agreeing with the liberals to dismiss the case, and the most conservative justices, led by Samuel A. Alito Jr., prepared to hold that EMTALA does absolutely nothing to limit strict abortion bans.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., agreed that it was too early for the court to intervene, but they didn’t seem averse to accepting Idaho’s arguments against EMTALA. Even if the center-right justices could find some rationale for providing patients with protection under EMTALA, they suggested a Faustian bargain: The court would interpret EMTALA to apply only to physical, not mental, health — and would conclude that the law does nothing to stop doctors with conscience-based objections from turning patients away, even when they face life-threatening emergencies.
The opinion Barrett penned clearly reflects suspicions about patients who invoke mental health as a justification for terminating a pregnancy, a long-standing talking point for those who consider psychological struggles during pregnancy to be a mere excuse for “abortion on demand.”
As for conscience-based denials of care, we can guess what Barrett has in mind because Kavanaugh’s majority opinion in the mifepristone case already spelled it out: Instead of the law having to balance doctors’ conscience-based objections with patients’ safety, the objecting doctors would be able to just say no, even in healthcare deserts where other providers may be unavailable.
The most concerning signal about what could be in store for those who get pregnant came in Alito’s dissent in the decision to send the Idaho case back to the lower court. Joined by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, he suggested that EMTALA, rather than protecting a pregnant patient with a life-threatening emergency, protects the unborn patient instead.
Antiabortion groups have long argued that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarantees constitutional fetal rights. Alito did not explicitly take up that question, but his reading of the statute aligns with so-called fetal personhood views. He reasoned that because the wording in EMTALA includes the term “unborn child,” its framers must have prioritized the fetus over the mother, even when the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy.
As EMTALA litigation moves back into the federal courts, the 2024 election could make the whole thing moot. A second Trump administration would almost certainly withdraw President Biden’s guidance on EMTALA and let the states make their own decisions about when to withhold emergency care from patients. That is precisely what conservatives, led by the Heritage Foundation, have recommended in Project 2025, a proposed blueprint for another Trump presidency.
Abortion rights advocates may have been relieved on Thursday that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court punted on the Idaho abortion cases, but any celebration will be short-lived. In reality, there is no relief in sight for pregnant patients facing the dangers of a post-Roe America.
Mary Ziegler is a law professor at UC Davis and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”
President Trump provoked a broad backlash this week when he posted a transcript from a right-wing podcast in which the host referred to China and India as “hellhole” places and said recent immigrants from those countries had not “integrated” into America as “European Americans” had.
The transcript, which Mr. Trump posted on his Truth Social account on Wednesday night, came from a recent episode of “The Savage Nation,” hosted by Michael Savage, a popular conservative talk radio host. Mr. Trump also posted the original video clip of Mr. Savage’s podcast.
The president did not add any commentary to his posts, but across Asia and the United States, many people saw an unwelcome message that demanded a response.
In a rare public rebuke of the White House, the Indian government took to X to criticize the comments, calling them “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste” without explicitly naming Mr. Trump.
Asian American advocacy groups and some Democratic lawmakers faulted Mr. Trump for amplifying xenophobic rhetoric at a time when the administration’s efforts to restrict even legal immigration have left many Indian Americans and Chinese Americans worried about their place in American society.
“We are deeply disturbed by @POTUS sharing this hateful, racist screed targeting Indian and Chinese Americans,” said the Hindu American Foundation, a group that has been critical of both Democrats and Republicans, in a statement on X. “Endorsing such rants as the president of the United States will further stoke hatred and endanger our communities, at a time when xenophobia and racism are already at an all time high.”
The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr. Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, are scheduled to meet for a summit in Beijing in mid-May.
The podcast excerpt shared by Mr. Trump was recorded shortly after the Supreme Court hearing on Mr. Trump’s executive order seeking to ban birthright citizenship, which confers citizenship on nearly all children born on U.S. soil and has long been seen as a fundamental tenet of American identity and law.
In the clip, Mr. Savage claimed, without evidence, that recent immigrants had “almost no loyalty” to America; that the nation was being “overrun with Chinese coming here just to drop a baby on our shores to then bring in the entire family”; and that Indians and Chinese had set up “internal mechanisms” so that only people from their countries could get tech jobs in California.
“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Mr. Savage said.
“They’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors,” he added.
Mr. Trump’s post comes as the Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for babies born to undocumented people and to some temporary foreign visitors. Mr. Trump has made rolling back birthright citizenship central to his campaign to expel millions of immigrants from the United States. He even attended the oral arguments at the Supreme Court where, to his dismay, some of the conservative justices appeared skeptical of the president’s position.
Earlier on Wednesday, before he posted the podcast transcript, Mr. Trump had said in a separate Truth Social post that “certain” conservative justices on the Supreme Court had “gone weak, stupid, and bad.” He mentioned the birthright citizenship case, which the court is expected to decide this summer.
On Thursday, a spokesman for the White House, Kush Desai, defended Mr. Trump’s post of the transcript, saying that the president was “calling out the scam of unfettered birthright citizenship.”
In recent years, Asians have been the fastest-growing group in the country, and people from India and China have accounted for the bulk of that increase. In 2023, Asians made up about 7 percent of the national population. By some measures, immigrants from India and China and their descendants have been among the most successful groups in the United States, with high levels of education and income.
But as the Trump administration has sought to limit most immigration pathways, both groups have also come under increasing scrutiny. The administration’s changes to the H-1B program, a skilled worker visa that is especially popular among Indians, have fueled racist rhetoric targeting the Indian community across the country.
The president’s push to end birthright citizenship has also spurred more debate over birth tourism, a term that refers to pregnant women who travel to the United States to give birth so that their baby can have American citizenship. It is most commonly associated with a cottage industry of “maternity hotels” that has emerged over the past two decades and caters to wealthy families from countries like China.
The phenomenon of birth tourism is not believed to be widespread. In its most recent estimate in 2020, the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports restricting immigration, put the number at around 20,000 to 26,000 babies a year — less than 1 percent of the number of babies born in the country. Nonetheless, birth tourism has become a frequent talking point for conservatives seeking to eliminate birthright citizenship for all.
Some Democratic lawmakers also criticized Mr. Trump for sharing the podcast transcript.
Representative Grace Meng, a Taiwanese American Democrat from New York and chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said in a statement that she was “disgusted” by the post.
“At a time when hate incidents against South Asian communities are surging, and one in four Americans view Chinese Americans as a threat,” she said, “amplifying this kind of bigotry pours fuel on an already dangerous fire and must be unequivocally condemned.”
Representative Ami Bera, an Indian American Democrat from California, described Mr. Trump’s comments in a post on X as “offensive, ignorant, and beneath the dignity of the office he holds.”
Mr. Desai, the White House spokesman, is Indian American. He said the president’s relationship with the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, was evidence of his support for people from India. “Everyone besides the failing legacy media knows that President Trump has a strong friendship with Prime Minister Modi and loves patriotic Indian Americans who were an important bloc in the historic coalition that fueled his landslide 2024 election victory,” he said.
Other prominent figures in the Trump administration of Indian or Chinese descent include Harmeet K. Dhillon, the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for civil rights; Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director; Steven Cheung, the White House communications director; and Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance.
Asked at a Turning Point USA event in Georgia last week about the H-1B visa program, Mr. Vance referred to his own in-laws to argue that while naturalized citizens should prioritize American interests over those of their ancestral country, many immigrants had also brought value to America.
“Look, I am married to the daughter of immigrants from India,” Mr. Vance said. “And I love my in-laws, and they’re great people and they’ve been great contributors to the United States of America.”
Politics
Trump Cabinet member scraps Obama-era gender identity housing rule, cites ‘biological reality’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner has ordered an immediate halt to enforcement of a key Obama-era housing rule tied to gender identity, directing the agency to operate programs based on biological sex.
The directive stops any pending or future enforcement of HUD’s 2016 Equal Access Rule, which expanded gender identity as formally recognized in federally-funded housing programs and shelters.
The move marks a significant shift in how shelters and HUD-funded providers operate, particularly those serving women fleeing domestic violence, and implements President Donald Trump’s executive order to restore what the administration calls “biological truth” across the federal government.
“I am directing HUD staff to halt any pending or future enforcement actions related to HUD’s 2016 Equal Access Rule, which, in essence, tied housing programs, shelters and other facilities funded by HUD to far-left gender ideology,” Turner said.
TRUMP STOPPED BIDEN’S PLAN TO FORCE DEI ON LOCAL COMMUNITIES
President Donald Trump stands with HUD Secretary Scott Turner at an event. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“We, at this agency, are carrying out the mission laid out by President Trump on Jan. 20 … to restore biological truth to the federal government,” he added.
“This means recognizing there are only two sexes: male and female. It means getting government out of the way of what the Lord established from the beginning when he created man in His own image.”
The 2016 rule allowed people to self-identify for gender when accessing certain housing services, limiting the ability of shelters to challenge that identification.
Critics of the rule argued it restricted the rights of shelters, particularly those serving women impacted by trauma, domestic abuse and violence, by requiring them to admit individuals based on gender identity rather than biological sex.
JUDGE FORCES CA HOSPITAL TO KEEP TRANS TREATMENTS FOR MINORS DESPITE TRUMP FUNDING THREAT
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development nominee Scott Turner testifies during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Jan. 16, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc)
Turner framed the move as part of a broader overhaul of HUD policy and spending.
“Moreover, this is just the first of many examples of how, starting on day one, HUD is going back to work for the American people and being a good steward of taxpayer dollars,” he said. “There will be more where this came from.”
The Equal Access Rule was first introduced in 2012, prohibiting discrimination in HUD-funded programs based on sexual orientation, gender identity and marital status. A 2016 update expanded those protections by requiring programs to recognize gender identity as well.
President Donald Trump and HUD Secretary Scott Turner attend a reception with Republican members of Congress in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 22, 2025. (Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Turner’s order does not repeal the rule but halts enforcement tied to the 2016 expansion.
“As I have said before, we are going to take inventory of HUD’s programs and ensure every dollar that goes out the door is advancing HUD’s mission, which is to provide quality, affordable homes for communities across the country — urban, rural and tribal — and promote economic investment to build stronger communities and a brighter future for all Americans,” Turner said.
WASHINGTON — The Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee said some members would support a presidential pardon for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her assistance in the committee’s investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
But good luck getting any of them to admit it.
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) told Politico on Wednesday that “a lot of people” support the idea of Maxwell receiving a pardon from President Trump in exchange for her cooperation in the committee’s investigation.
Although Comer said he opposed a pardon himself — “other than Epstein, the worst person in this whole investigation is Maxwell” — he offered that his committee was “split” on the issue.
Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, the top Democrat on his committee, condemned the idea of a Maxwell pardon and said Democrats on the committee uniformly oppose it.
“It’s outrageous that Republicans on the Oversight Committee are considering a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell,” Garcia said in a statement. “She is a sexual abuser who facilitated the rape of women and children.”
The Times reached out to all 26 Republicans on the committee to see who, if anyone, supported the idea of a pardon.
Although most didn’t respond, the few who did expressed outrage at the idea.
“I am absolutely not supporting a pardon for her nor have I heard that from anyone else,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said.
“Never in a thousand years,” Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said.
Maxwell declined to answer the committee’s questions during a video deposition in February from the Texas federal prison where she is serving her 20-year sentence.
She still is challenging her 2021 conviction on five counts related to the sex trafficking of minors for her role in recruiting and grooming girls for Epstein to abuse. She was accused at trial of also participating in the abuse of one victim.
At the time of her February deposition, Maxwell’s attorney David Oscar Markus said she would offer the “unfiltered truth” if granted clemency by Trump.
Attorneys who have represented victims abused by Epstein and Maxwell strongly opposed the idea of a pardon.
“This is a woman who belongs behind bars for the rest of her life for what she did to women,” said Spencer Kuvin, who has represented numerous Epstein victims.
Sigrid McCawley, a managing partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, questioned the value of information Maxwell could provide.
“Ghislaine Maxwell is a proven self-serving liar,” McCawley said in a statement. “There is nothing credible that she will offer the government, and the assertion that she would provide information is simply a smoke screen.”
Trump has not said he is considering a pardon, but when asked by reporters he has declined to rule it out.
Epstein abused more than 1,000 girls and young women over the span of decades. He negotiated a lenient deal nearly two decades ago with federal prosecutors in south Florida that allowed him to serve 13 months in a Palm Beach County jail, where he was allowed to come and go freely, to settle claims that he had abused dozens of high school girls.
Following investigative reporting on that deal by the Miami Herald, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York brought new sex charges against Epstein in July 2019. He died in federal custody one month later.
Epstein and Maxwell counted members of the British royal family, multiple presidents and business titans among their friends. They have been accused of forcing victims to have sex with some of those men. Maxwell is the only other person who has been charged in connection with Epstein’s crimes.
The committee has deposed numerous people who knew Epstein, including Ohio billionaire Les Wexner, who hired Epstein to manage his finances, and former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The committee has not, however, deposed Trump, who once famously called Epstein a “terrific guy” and said “I just wish her well” when told of Maxwell’s arrest in 2020.
The Department of Justice has released millions of pages of documents from its investigations in response to the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law last year.
The release led to criminal inquiries in the United Kingdom into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince, and Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States, over allegations that they provided secret government information to Epstein.
So far, the files have not led to any publicly known criminal investigations in the United States.
-
Colorado6 minutes ago
Corpse abuse cases force changes on Colorado’s scandal-plagued funeral industry
-
Connecticut12 minutes agoAdvocates pushing to expand bill protecting Connecticut renters
-
Delaware18 minutes agoDelaware crabshack remains enthusiastic despite increased crab prices – 47abc
-
Florida24 minutes agoThe Vikings’ new DT Caleb Banks has strength that fits his massive size
-
Georgia30 minutes ago
Five Stats to Know about Texans G Keylan Rutledge
-
Hawaii36 minutes agoAloha in Action benefit concert raises money for flood victims
-
Idaho42 minutes agoIdaho officials review medical cannabis campaign as donor records change
-
Illinois48 minutes agoHow Illinois affordable housing bills could change suburban neighborhoods