Politics
Supreme Court sounds wary of Idaho's ban on emergency abortions for women whose health is in danger
The Supreme Court justices voiced doubt Wednesday about a strict Idaho law that would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion even for a woman who arrives at a hospital suffering from a serious, but not life-threatening, medical emergency.
Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, said such cases are rare and tragic. They are not elective abortions, she said, but pregnancies that have turned into medical emergencies.
Prelogar urged the high court to rule that federal emergency care law applies nationwide and sometimes requires hospitals and their doctors to perform an abortion — regardless of any state restrictions on the procedure — if a pregnant patient’s health or life is at risk.
The justices sounded closely split, but Prelogar’s argument appeared to gain traction with some conservatives.
The clash over emergency rooms is the first direct challenge to a state’s abortion law to come before the high court since the justices overturned Roe vs. Wade in a 5-4 vote in 2022.
The court’s conservatives said then that states and their lawmakers were free to restrict or regulate abortion.
Idaho’s lawmakers voted to forbid abortion except when it is “necessary” to prevent the patient’s death. In court, their lawyers argued that the authority to regulate doctors and the practice of medicine rests with the state.
Doctors join abortion-rights supporters at a rally Wednesday outside the U.S. Supreme Court building.
(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)
But the Biden administration sued Idaho and said it was violating the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that Congress adopted in 1986. The law requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to patients who face a medical emergency.
“For some pregnant women suffering tragic emergency complications, the only care that can prevent grave harm to their health is termination of the pregnancy,” the administration’s attorney said. In such situations, delay is dangerous, Prelogar added.
Idaho’s attorney, Joshua Turner, ran into sharp questions from several conservatives.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho would use its laws to prosecute doctors who perform emergency room abortions. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh also voiced doubt about the state’s argument.
Barrett cast a key vote to strike down Roe vs. Wade, but took on the Idaho attorney Wednesday for refusing to say whether doctors could perform abortions in certain emergencies.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited real cases from Florida and elsewhere, but Turner refused to give a yes-or-no answer as to whether such abortions would be legal in Idaho.
“Counsel, I’m kind of shocked actually because I thought your own expert has said these kinds of case were covered,” Barrett said.
“It’s a subjective standard … and very case-by-case,” Turner replied.
The exchange highlighted the problem cited by emergency room doctors in Idaho. They cannot know for sure whether an abortion would be legal under the state’s law.
What happens if the state’s lawyers believe a doctor’s intervention was not justified? “Would they be prosecuted under Idaho’s law?” Barrett asked.
Even if other doctors support the decision, “what if the prosecutor thought differently?” she said.
Roberts pressed the same point. “What happens if a dispute arises with respect to whether or not the doctor was within the confines of the Idaho law or wasn’t? Is the doctor subjected to review by a medical authority?”
Possibly, according to the state attorney. “The Board of Medicine has licensing oversight over a doctor,” Turner replied.
Kavanaugh said he was uncertain what was at stake because the state had changed its view over what emergency conditions could justify an abortion.
Justice Elena Kagan said the law has resulted in six pregnant women being airlifted to neighboring states to obtain abortions.
Justices Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson were also sharply skeptical of Idaho’s argument.
Prelogar, the Biden administration’s attorney, assured the conservative justices that federal law includes “conscience protections” for doctors and hospitals morally opposed to abortion.
The case of Moyle vs. United States poses a clash between the federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care and the state’s authority to regulate doctors and the practice of medicine.
Regardless of how the court rules in the Idaho case, the outcome should have no direct effect in California or other states where abortion remains legal.
Abortion-rights supporters gather outside the Supreme Court building Wednesday.
(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)
Turner said 22 states now prohibit most abortions, and the court’s ruling could apply to all of them.
But Prelogar said Idaho is among only six states that make no exceptions for protecting the health of a pregnant patient.
Doctors in Idaho contend the law endangers patients.
In medical emergencies, “delay puts the patient’s life and health at risk. But the lack of clarity in the law is creating fear in our physicians,” said Dr. Jim Souza, chief physician executive for St. Luke’s Health System in Boise.
He said doctors in emergency rooms often see pregnant women whose water has broken, or who have a severe infection or are bleeding badly. An abortion may be called for in such a situation, but doctors know they could be subject to criminal prosecution if they act too soon, he said.
“Doctors are leaving the state because of the fear surrounding this law,” Souza said in an interview.
On Thursday night, Dan Helmer received a shipment of boxes with 1,000 yard signs that read: “Dan Helmer for Congress.”
By late Friday morning, Mr. Helmer no longer had a seat to run for.
The whiplash for the Virginia Democrats running for Congress was swift and intense after the state Supreme Court struck down the new congressional map proposed in February to flip four Republican-held seats.
With the stroke of a pen in Richmond, some campaigns effectively went poof, other candidates suddenly were in far tougher districts and one went from on the verge of dropping out to gearing up for a long-shot battle in a deep-red part of the state.
Rarely have so many fully formed campaigns gone off the rails at once. The court’s shock decision on Friday dashed Democratic hopes of providing some balance to Republican-run states that have been eliminating Democratic seats since Texas kicked off a nationwide fight last year.
Mr. Helmer, a senior member of the House of Delegates, was an architect of Virginia’s redistricting gambit that began in October. His colleagues subsequently split up Northern Virginia and created a new lobster-shaped Democratic seat ideally suited for him. Barring a miracle from the Supreme Court, Mr. Helmer said his congressional campaign is most likely over.
“There’s no seat for me,” he said. His new yard signs “are probably not as useful as they were yesterday.”
Tom Perriello, a former congressman who later served as a diplomat in Africa during Barack Obama’s presidency, began his campaign in December with the expectation that new maps were coming.
He woke up Friday morning in his home near Charlottesville in a district that Vice President Kamala Harris carried by three percentage points in 2024. Once the court ruling came a few hours later, he lived in a district Mr. Trump won by 12 points.
Mr. Perriello said he would now run against Representative John McGuire, a first-term Republican whose district covers conservative Southside Virginia. He had planned to run in a district that stitched together small Democratic-leaning cities and college towns in the Shenandoah and Blue Ridge Mountains.
The situation is even more jarring for some Democratic voters, Mr. Perriello said.
“I just walked into a food pantry in the Shenandoah Valley and the African-American woman who runs it broke down in tears and said for the first time in her life she thought she was going to have representation,” Mr. Perriello recalled Friday. “This is what the last two months have been about, about hope for the first time for people.”
Some hope Democrats will gain seats even without the new maps.
Virginia Democrats now hold six of the state’s 11 House districts. President Trump won two of the other five by five points or less, making the Republican incumbents who represent them, Representatives Jen Kiggans and Rob Wittman, endangered given the headwinds the G.O.P. faces. Their Democratic opponents, former Representative Elaine Luria and Shannon Taylor, a local prosecutor, entered the race well before the redistricting push and remain top-tier challengers.
Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House minority leader, said in an interview Friday that “we’re going to pick up at least two seats” in Virginia under the existing maps.
Jeff Ryer, the chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, said he had given the state Supreme Court case a 50-50 chance of succeeding. Democrats, he argued, have been overconfident in the state ever since Abigail Spanberger won last year’s governor’s election by more than 15 points.
Now, instead of a map designed to hand 10 of 11 seats to Democrats, Mr. Ryer said he expected multiple competitive campaigns this year. He allowed that it would not be easy defending the seats Mr. Trump narrowly won.
“These districts are designed to be compact and contiguous, and when you draw them that way you’re going to get some that are not competitive and some that are hotly contested,” Mr. Ryer said.
Some Democrats vowed to soldier on under difficult conditions.
Beth Macy, the best-selling author of books like “Dopesick,” about the struggles in Appalachia, started her campaign in November before the proposed Democratic maps drew her into a district with Mr. Perriello, who was far better known and had deeper connections in their shared region of Virginia.
Ms. Macy said on Friday that she had been considering conceding the primary and endorsing Mr. Perriello, but now would remain a candidate against Representative Ben Cline, a Republican whose district includes her hometown, Roanoke.
“I feel bad, but you know, we can’t just roll over,” Ms. Macy said. “Democrats have got to stop showing up to a knife fight with a spork.”
Ms. Macy, who is now running in a deep-red district Mr. Trump carried by 25 points, is not short on optimism. She predicted the backlash to Republican policies in Washington could lead to Virginia Democrats sweeping out G.O.P. incumbents across the state and perhaps reach the same end Democrats had hoped for with their maps.
“We have never been to where we are in this country,” she said. “It’s a national emergency.”
Politics
Hegseth says Pentagon will review Mark Kelly’s public statements about classified briefing amid ongoing feud
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Sunday suggested Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., may have violated his oath with comments he made to a news outlet following a classified briefing.
Kelly told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation that it is “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines” when asked if the Pentagon has updated lawmakers on the Iran war’s impact on U.S. weapons stockpiles.
The senator told Brennan the Tomahawks, Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) rounds and Patriot rounds used to defend the U.S. have been hit hard, adding that it will take years to replenish those stockpiles, which could affect a hypothetical U.S. conflict with China.
In response, Hegseth questioned whether Kelly, a former Navy pilot, may have violated his oath and said the Pentagon’s legal counsel will review his comments.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS PENTAGON FROM DEMOTING MARK KELLY OVER CONTROVERSIAL MILITARY VIDEO
Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth suggested Sen. Mark Kelly may have violated his oath with comments he made following a classified briefing. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“‘Captain’ Mark Kelly strikes again,” Hegseth wrote on X.
“Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a *CLASSIFIED* Pentagon briefing he received,” he continued. “Did he violate his oath… again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
The senator clapped back, saying Hegseth had revealed similar information at a recent hearing and that it was not classified.
“We had this conversation in a public hearing a week ago and you said it would take ‘years’ to replenish some of these stockpiles,” Kelly responded on X. “That’s not classified, it’s a quote from you. This war is coming at a serious cost and you and the president still haven’t explained to the American people what the goal is.”
This comes amid a months-long dispute between Hegseth and Kelly over the senator’s participation in a video with some of his Democratic colleagues in Congress urging U.S. military members to ignore “illegal” orders.
The DOJ has opened an investigation into the video posted online featuring six Democratic lawmakers calling on troops and members of the intelligence community to defy illegal orders from the federal government. The lawmakers all served in the military or at intelligence agencies.
In addition to Kelly, the other lawmakers in the video were Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, as well as Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Jason Crow of Colorado.
GRAND JURY REJECTS DOJ EFFORT TO INDICT DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS WHO URGED MILITARY TO DEFY ILLEGAL ORDERS
Pentagon chief Hegseth said the Pentagon’s legal counsel will review Sen. Mark Kelly’s latest comments. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers said in the video. “Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats coming to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”
Grand jurors declined to sign off on charges against the lawmakers in February.
In November, the Pentagon launched an investigation into Kelly, pointing to a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the secretary for possible court-martial or other punishment.
Hegseth has censured Kelly and has attempted to retroactively demote him from his retired rank of captain over his participation in the video, which affirms that refusing unlawful orders is a standard part of military protocol.
But a federal court ruling blocked the Pentagon from demoting the lawmaker over the video. The court also found the Pentagon likely violated Kelly’s First Amendment rights, and those of “millions of military retirees,” when it formally censured him on Jan. 5.
Hegseth subsequently appealed that ruling.
Sen. Mark Kelly has repeatedly said he would not back down amid the Pentagon’s attempts to punish him over the video. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments and appeared largely skeptical of Hegseth’s attempt to punish Kelly for the video.
“I will not back down from this fight,” Kelly said after the hearing.
President Donald Trump had accused the lawmakers of being “traitors” who engaged in “sedition at the highest level” and “should be in jail” after the video was posted last fall. He even suggested they should be executed over the video, although he later attempted to walk that comment back.
Slotkin, who previously worked at the CIA and Pentagon, was targeted with a bomb threat just days after the clip and Trump’s subsequent statements suggesting the Democrats be executed.
Voters in California may get a chance to remake the state’s open primary system in two years.
Political consultant Steve Maviglio filed an application Friday with state officials that seeks to alter California’s voting system by reverting to a traditional primary. Under the proposal, the top candidates from each party would advance to the general election in November.
The current system allows the top two candidates, regardless of party, to move on to the runoff. That has led to instances in which two Democrats or two Republicans have faced off in the general election.
The state’s gubernatorial election, for example, has prompted concern that two Republicans could shut out the Democratic candidates. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton have polled high in various surveys and are facing a large field of Democrats.
Democratic voters vastly outnumber Republicans in California, yet some political consultants said they feared there were so many Democrats running that voters wouldn’t coalesce around one candidate and the field would be split. Those fears have eased somewhat in recent months as some Democratic candidates advance from the pack.
The state’s top-two primary system has been in place since California voters passed Proposition 14 in 2010. The state’s major political parties opposed the initiative, while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supported it.
The goal was to help end partisan gridlock in Sacramento and force candidates in primaries to appeal to a wider range of voters, rather than just those in their own party.
Proposition 14, as well as the state’s once-a-decade redistricting process, has led to some dramatic races, including the 2012 face-off between Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman for a congressional seat in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. Amid aspersions and attack ads, the pair nearly came to blows at a community debate.
Maviglio described the ballot measure as a simple repeal of Proposition 14, and said he was inspired by the governor’s race.
“It was extremely scary to envision the November ballot for governor with Republicans on it,” Maviglio said.
The New York Times first reported on the ballot measure proposal.
A news release from Maviglio states that the proposed repeal of Prop. 14 “is fueled by concerns that California’s primaries are disenfranchising a majority of California voters by limiting choice to candidates from one party.”
A website for the effort includes criticisms of the current primary system by Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks and Ron Nehring, former chairman of the California Republican Party.
Maviglio’s ballot initiative proposes to appear on the 2028 ballot and take effect in 2030.
Talk of changing Proposition 14 has been swirling in Sacramento for months.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber told reporters at an unrelated news conference last week that she had voted years ago against Proposition 14. She questioned whether it had actually succeeded in creating more diversity.
“I did not like the open primary,” Weber said. “I didn’t think it would solve any problems. They had a list of problems it would solve, and none of those have been solved.”
-
Sports2 minutes agoMissouri running back Ahmad Hardy in stable condition after getting shot at concert
-
World14 minutes ago‘We need to make up our mind’: EU split over direct talks with Russia
-
News44 minutes agoWhite House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting suspect pleads not guilty in federal court
-
New York2 hours agoHow a Writer and Literary Agent Lives on $48,000 in Riverdale
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoBruno Mars shines in Detroit – Detroit Metro Times
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoSan Francisco Giants vs Los Angeles Dodgers Live Stream: How to Watch MLB
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoDallas Cowboys Announce Opponent, Date & Time for Week 1 of 2026 NFL Season
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoFlorida fire map shows live updates on wildfires burning in Broward and Miami-Dade