The Supreme Court asked the one question that scared Joe Biden

The Supreme Court is once again in the middle of a critical political debate.

Liberals won’t like what’s about to hit them.

And the Supreme Court asked the one question that scared Joe Biden.

Justices voice support for personhood status for unborn babies in Idaho Abortion case

Idaho has one of the strongest Pro-Life laws in the books, which protects life in all cases save the life of the mother and rape or incent.

The pro-abortion fanatics at Joe Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice sued, claiming this law runs afoul of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act’s (EMTALA), which requires doctors to perform emergency “stabilizing care” during a pregnancy.

Democrats want abortion-on-demand with no restrictions, and Biden saw the EMTALA as a workaround to effectively neutralize state Pro-Life laws.

But conservatives on the Supreme Court had other ideas.

And the Biden administration may have walked right into a trap.

Justice Samuel Alito noted that EMTALA defined “emergency medical condition[s]” as care that puts “the health of the woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.” 

Alito argued that by including this language, Congress recognized the personhood rights of unborn children, arguing that the law meant doctors must “try to eliminate any immediate threat to the child” and that “performing an abortion is antithetical to that duty.”

“Have you seen abortion statutes that use the phrase unborn child?” Justice Alito asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “Doesn’t that tell us something?”

Personhood question is a gamechanger 

Prelogar knew she was in trouble and tried to weasel her way out.

“It tells us that Congress wanted to expand the protections for pregnant women so they could get the same duties to screen and stabilize when they have a condition that is threatening the health and wellbeing of the unborn child,” Prelogar said. “But what it doesn’t suggest is that Congress simultaneously displaced the independent, preexisting obligation to treat a woman who herself is facing grave life and health consequences.”

But Justice Neil Gorsuch picked up on this thread.

“What do we do with EMTALA’s definition of individual to include both the women, and as the statute says, the unborn child?” Gorsuch asked Joshua Turner, the lawyer defending Idaho’s Pro-Life law.

“It would be a strange thing for Congress to have regard for the unborn child and yet also be mandating termination of unborn children,” Turner responded.

The outcome of this case 

All the conservatives on the court sounded unpersuaded by the Biden administration’s argument.

The question now becomes how many are in favor of creating a fetal personhood right.

Fetal personhood rights are key because if the court grants personhood, then unborn babies receive all protections under the 14th Amendment, and abortion in America ends on the spot.

There appear to be at least two votes for that outcome.

*Renewed Right Official Polling*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *