Democrats trying to get around the constitution. Again. All the left judges were just talking over the Idaho representatives. Get real. Understand the federal government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY using funding to supersede state laws.
@@FilmFlam-8008 Rights of fetus doesn't take presidence over the right of the woman. Why can't you guys ignore abortion, like you do school shooting???
Lawyers, five of them who have never been pregnant, are trying to decide when a pregnant woman is dying _enough_ to qualify for a legal abortion. Bonkers.
The vast majority being brain washed into arguing for the very small minority of cases and claiming that as their base argument for the large majority getting abortions due to selfish reasons (inconvenience etc)
@@FilmFlam-8008 Keep up. I bet you have no clue what EMTALA, the law being debated, does for pregnant women experiencing emergency medical crises. Or how Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which the likes of you opposed, saved the lives of thousands of actual, born-alive babies.
@@FilmFlam-8008That’s a false equivalency. You do know that ectopic pregnancy, ruptured uterus, preeclampsia, etc all exist. Just because they were born doesn’t negate the point that this is a slippery slope. Yes, it sucks that the fetus must be killed should a medical emergency occur but that’s for a doctor to decide.
@@Malik_Maverick Ectopic pregnancy is a red herring. It is always fatal to the fetus, 90% of the time within the first trimester. Surgical removal of the fetus and placenta is the only treatment that can prevent serious, life-threatening risk to the mother. Interestingly, previous abortions increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy. My mother had such a pregnancy in Canada back when there was a blanket ban on abortion. The only problem she had in getting appropriate care before it was life-threatening is that multiple pregnancy tests (urine and blood) consistently came up negative. No doctor would have refused to intervene earlier had they known she had a baby in her left fallopian tube. Ruptured uterus? It typically occurs in the third trimester or during a full term attempt at vaginal labor following previous C-sections, a history of PID, or structural uterine abnormalities/defects. Or uterine scarring from previous abortions. In other words, when removal of the fetus is necessary, but the death of the fetus is not. In the first trimester, it's vanishingly rare and is associated with comorbidities that would likely cause future infertility regardless of whether an abortion is performed. Ironically, scarring from previous abortions is one of the associated comorbidities for first trimester uterine rupture. Just something to think about. Preeclampsia is typically diagnosed at about 20 weeks or later, and mild cases can usually be managed with bed rest until the pregnancy is full term. In more severe cases, medications to reduce blood pressure and prevent convulsions may be given. In the most severe cases, steroids are given to mature the fetus's lungs and the baby is delivered at or before 36 weeks. Preeclampsia is associated with first pregnancies, pregnancies following an earlier preeclamptic pregnancy, maternal age of 35 or older, obesity and assisted reproduction treatments such as IVF. There's going to be some overlap there--for instance, women over 35 are more likely to need IVF. So do women who are having fertility problems because of previous abortions. My sister in law had preeclampsia with her first pregnancy (age 35). She went on bed rest and her son was born healthy but two weeks early. She and her husband wanted two, so she lost weight, got her BP under control, and when she was 37, they tried again. This time, it was worse. Not only did she get preeclampsia even worse this time, but the baby needed surgery in utero to correct a defect in her heart. All of which would appear to be an argument for: 1) not waiting too long. It increases the risk of abortion-worthy complications 2) be healthy in general, and avoid avoidable comorbidities like obesity 3) C-sections should never be done for convenience because they can complicate future pregnancies 4) previous abortions also put you at risk of an abortion-worthy complication, so should not be done on a whim Maybe the left needs to rethink things. Give women proper information and proper advice. Don''t do shit you might regret later, whether that's getting knocked up, electively aborting for convenience, or waiting too long before you even try.
The argument that EMTALA doesn't cover illegal procedures is spurious when the sole purpose of banning the procedure is to create a situation where certain people suffer.
@@rickybobby7276letting the pregnant person having a medical emergency die, thus the fetus also dying, is preferred? You want 2 deaths instead of 1 and the potential of future babies?
@@rickybobby7276 hope this doesn’t affect any woman or girl in your life. The cases presented were women that wanted their babies, now they can no longer have children and the almost died. Is that something you would want for a loved one in your own life?
@@rickybobby7276 are you this passionate about children getting shot in schools or about republicans wanting to cut CHIP, welfare program for children or Medicaid which covers disabled children or children in lower income families?
Really? Everyone has the right to deny medical treatment? You do realize that certain medical treatments were mandated not that long ago? Incidentally, these medical treatments posed significant risks, and even killed people.
I beg to differ with justice Alito that Idaho and the other states that have restricted abortion rights care about either the mother or fetus. If the states did care they would be providing care for at risk fetuses and by extension the mother. I fully believe that in most of these tragic cases the mother wants the baby to go to term. If the states cared for either the mother or the fetus they would be offering intensive care treatment for them but they just send the mother and fetus away to wait for the situation to become more dire which doesn’t treat either mother or fetus. I think we all know that the hospital, state, lawyer and insurance company know treatment would be very expensive and result in a very sad miscarriage. Nobody in the above list wants to pay those huge costs.
Or that there’s nothing else they could do and may lead to criminal charges or lawsuits if misdiagnosed lead to the death of the baby. Same reason why they stopped the IVF procedures in Alabama
The alive woman citizen is in every single case the primary and uttermost holder of ALL rights to life. There can be no doubting that any decision no matter how small or perceived fault that saves the alive citizen's life is just. The medical team in a decision here is considered totally and completely infallible. They can never be questioned or otherwise legally doubted or sued in a feint of harm to an mass of cells unfit for life. Just like the woman seeking the abortion cannot be prosecuted so should any Emergency Room Doctor and supporting Hospital be sued or prosecuted for providing Emergency care despite the existence of a fetus at any stage of gestation.
@@rectorkirk1158so standing idly by when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy - which always results in the miscarriage of the fetus and an excruciating painful death of the mother - is perfectly ok with you.
@@jacobwatson1818 I think government should stay out of medical health decisions. The government imposing your will on women’s healthcare is a pro government stance.
It’s funny that justice Thomas says that the Idaho lawyer was provided some cases and asked to make a snap judgement, but this is what doctors are being asked to do in real time in Idaho and these other red states. Make snap decisions and take into consideration risking mother’s life or possibly going to jail. How can anyone practice medicine this way?
For the vast majority of abortions, this is not the case, also why ask a justice about things a doctor is supposed to know? They chose their career path and are expected to obtain the knowledge and ability to do so.
@@Cocomelxne it’s hard enough to make life and death decisions. I worked in labor and delivery, you have no idea how many ectopic pregnancies happen or water breaking at less than 18 weeks, and a host of other emergencies for which abortion is necessary. Hope nothing like this happens to any woman or girl, in your life. Now doctors have to fear prison to make decisions that are already difficulty enough. No one in medicine signed up for this.
@@mariaespiritu9512 what’s the percentage of those? And how many abortions were actually necessary? And I don’t mean the doctor thinks it was. When all other options were exhausted and abortion was all that’s left, how many? Are you in favour of abortion with the exception for those very small percentage cases?
Idaho and the majority are wholly disingenuous. Clearly, even with the "good faith" provision, the law is chilling. This is already known from many actual incidents across the country.
1:08:00 how is there no president of Mental health as a qualifying condition? The Idaho lawyer said the psych board outlined abortion explicitly that abortion can be the standard of care in certain situations . 🤷🏻♂️
Are you worried about your health? Is your doctor telling you there's a high chance of injury? or possibly death in the near future? Then ask your state legislator what medical treatment is right for you.
@@FilmFlam-8008 I would like to see an example of the state legislature criminalizing life saving medical procedures by requiring inaction. Procedures the A.M.A. advocate for, and without which, needlessly endanger the life, health, and wellbeing. Lawmakers generally pass legislation meant to protect patients from harm, not put patients in harms way intentionally.
When the Idaho lawyer was asked what would happen if one doctor decided that the abortion was necessary but another doctor later said different, the lawyer admitted that a prosecutor could make the decision to file charges against the doctor. You better hope nothing happens to any woman you care about in a state with these laws. How can a doctor make sound decisions if he’s worried he’d be sent to prison for making that decision?
No, there is no federal right to abortion in the Constitution, nor in any law passed by Congress. If you want there to be, you're going to have to pass a law THAT ACTUALLY MENTIONS ABORTION.
There is also no federal law saying you’re allowed to enforce your religious doctrine on every American either. Actually it explicitly says you CANT do that.
The complication is that there are two people involved in abortion, not one. The rights of both people must be considered. We know that in some sense Rights are gained by sentience. So as we age and develop, we gain Rights. Children may be spanked, teens can drive, adults can vote, at certain ages people can run for office. The question is, "at what stage of sentience do people gain the Right to Life?"
@ascensionblade Interesting. Apparently they became friends before he died ( even going hunting or shooting together). That's one of the things I like about her, she's willing to engage across the aisle.
What are you talking about? You don't make sense. Yes, in court, people are talked about regarding laws and provisions. Other than that, IDK what you're trying to get at here. The doctors know their jobs just fine. They also know the laws too. That is why they are airlifting all the pregnant women to other states instead of treating them in their own hospitals. That is the case at hand here. Try to keep up.
Bottom line is that IF a person is in the hospital with a life threatening problem and they are pregnant and the only way to ensure that the person lives that the pregnancy is terminated that IS a reasonable solution! But if the person went to the hospital with NO medical emergency other than being pregnant is NOT a good reason for the procedure! The fact that the baby( fetus) IS a living creature in every respect, IT has the right to be considered to have IT'S life be just as important as the person who is pregnant, EVERY single attempt to save the baby(fetus)IS required I don't hear anything about that in this argument!
Your comment has nothing to do with this case. This case is ONLY about emergent medical care where the woman is at risk for serious health complications or death. Why are you talking about elective abortions? This case isn't about those. At all. Try to keep up.
If you read my comment , the first sentence said if a woman was in the hospital with a LIFE THREATENING problem , and is pregnant that would be the acceptable to do an abortion ! Nothing to do with elective !
If you played a drinking game where you took a sip every time she started out: "Help me understand, I'm not understanding this...." you'd be drunk inside of 20 minutes.
Sorry that you aren't a lawyer or a judge. Neither am I. But it is not a out whether WE can understand all the words. We are only listening in on communication between highly skilled people in their profession. It isn't about us at all.
You missed Alito and Gorsuch doing the same thing. Why is that? BTW, oral arguments don't always require full sentences. As soon as the justice heard the reasoning, that's all they needed to know. Go cry about that.
Since women had the right to vote the country has been in decline. You are promoting that women vote for abortion because you are irresponsible and avoid accountability.
So literally we have national healthcare with respect to the power the federal government wields on what hospitals and doctors can’t do by way of funding Medicare or not depending on the rules they set forth by decree of the king in charge at the time. So abortion is said to be up to the states but clearly the feds can and do decide through the money chain. How many hospitals would there be if none of them accepted Medicare patients.
I'm terms of national health care, yes, the federal government has told hospitals what to do in ERs since 1986. They must stabilize a patient before transferring them to another hospital. Why do you think this case should be any different? You didn't have a problem about this until now. Why is that?
@@danoberste8146 Barrett and Kay let him speak. The Libs continually cut him off before he could finish the first sentence of his reply. One of the Justices (I’m guessing Roberts) even pointed it out later on. These libs are acting like it’s a hearing and they got their 5 minutes to preach. That’s shameful
@@dragonflarefrog1424 They might have been cut short but every time at least got to finish their sentences. The libs constantly asked a question then immediately cut the counselor off before he could finish a sentence. It’s a question and answer session, not a chance for the Justices just to preach their views
You have an abortion you go to jail for life. If you can't control your sex and you wake up one morning and say I'm pregnant I don't want it. What are you going to do?
What does that have to do with this case? This case is about medical emergencies. Not about elective abortions. Actually, in many of these cases, the pregnancies are wanted. But an ectopic pregnancy is not going to work out. Either is a pregnancy with PPROM. In all the scenarios with this case, it doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant or if she wants it or not. Medical emergencies are medical emergencies. Period. Idaho has an abortion exception just for risk of death. But in emergencies, hospitals get federal funding for stabilizing patients instead of dumping them to other hospitals. The statute that gives hospitals the funding says that hospitals must treat the patient to avoid risk of HEALTH and not just death. And in some cases, abortion is the only medical treatment to stabilize a patient. Like one who has an ectopic pregnancy that has ruptured. Idaho won't treat these women with abortion care. Even if it is the ONLY care within standard guidelines. Hospitals are airlifting them to other states. That they are airlifting them instead of sending them by ambulance tells you that they know these patients are at risk for serious health complications or death. The Biden Administration is trying to get Idaho to stop dumping the patients. Idaho doesn't want to stop and it still wants to receive federal money for its hospitals. Even though they are not following the federal guidelines. Now can you understand what the case is about?
The fetus is not viable or dead. The woman's body might abort that fetus. But sometimes her body does not. Idaho wants her in sepsis and near death before she can get medical care.
@@hollowhammer3526 It's simple. Don't put your schlong into places you don't want to be responsible for. Or wear a sleeve. Besides, men seem quite able to find all sorts of ways to not take responsibility - financial or otherwise.
But look on the briefer side… your position on letting women die to save a non-viable fetus that will also die will rase widowers to an all time high. That’s what you’re going for, right?
They actually talked about it 3 separate times with different judges. Perhaps you were doing something else and listening for those specific words. Different words were used, but that was the topic. You, clearly, did not really listen to the case.
It seems to me the liberal judges ask a lot of questions they don’t actually want answers too. Very much like our house and senate when both sides simply make speeches. I don’t hear the conservative judges cutting off the responses numerous times . Hard to glean any clear idea of the respondents remarks when they are interrupted so much.
I'm pro choice and I had the same reaction. I want to understand. I thoight there were some good questions but what do you learn without answers? I appreciated the one judge who said "Let him anwer!" And the other judge who said "I'd like to hear your answer to that question." I also detest when someone demands a "yes or no" to a question that has an answer needing explanation. "Are you still beating your wife, yes or no?!" What does a person who never beat their wife answer?
I'm not going to lie this lawyer sounds reasonable and the Supreme Court sounds ridiculous taking over him and not allowing to answer because they know his answer will deflate their accusation.
Which lawyer? SCOTUS is accusing who of what? Which Justice sre you referring to? Be specific rather than use overly broad derp accusatory language that says effing nothing. I don't mind bots. I mind ignorant people trying to join the intellectual fray with just their ignorance.😊
@christianhorlikc5441 so you're a bot? This video doesn't say the name of the person representing the state of Idaho so you're request is in reasonable and if you listen you'd know what I was taking about so I don't mind questions and requests for specifics but I'm not doing research for your questions that don't even matter to the point of you just listen.
@@huzzindaable Let's make it easier for you. Is it the first lawyer or the second lawyer? You wrote something exceptionally vague while simultaneously criticizing SCOTUS. Then you couldn't even bother taking an actual position. That's what makes you grotesquely ignorant. You judged all of SCOTUS w/o representing one side or the other. FYI, Justices generally stop lawyers from talking when they either establish a position or fail at establishing a position. You're self-important enough to criticize SCOTUS but you're just too slow to follow what's going on.
@huzzindaable You still don't get it. Lawyers for either side are routinely "interrupted" by any of the Justices when they can't answer the Justice's question logically OR they have already addressed the question and are still speaking pointlesslly. What you wrote originally can easily be applied to the government's lawyer. Your derp opinion literally can be applied to every lawyer who has ever argued in front of SCOTUS. JFC. Again, I don't mind that you didn't know any better. That ignorance is no longer an excuse. And you going to that ignorance obstinately trying to discredit something. When you wonder why certain people condescend to you, it's cuz you're purposefully derp to promote a political hack point. Congrats.
@@brendahogan5779 it’s what we vote for. We’re American first, Unless… It’s welfare. Criminalizing homelessness. Wic. Social security. Medicare. We hate unions and love at will employment even though it takes all of the power away from the workers. We hate regulations even though they protect our communities and the middle/lower class wage workers. Any time the middle class gets something from their taxes we call it socialism yet we run to bailout billion dollar corporations with the very same tax dollars without batting an eye. In other words, both parties want to capitalize the gains and socialize the losses, but republicans take it to a completely different level in terms of screwing us over lately.
@@jehovahsthickness6242 Boy so much wrong with what you posted so lets start from the top, I have no problem with helping those out who need it when they hit a bad spell in life but I am entirely against welfare as your occupation. If you can walk and talk then you can work. Social security is fine as is medicare other than the fact that we allow to many people to use these programs who dont need to and they have overloaded the system bankrupting them. Entitlement programs make up the lion share of federal spending followed by defense and now the interest on our debt. Our forefathers never intended for the federal government to be your caretaker, to them that would have been the opposite of freedom. Unions kill jobs period, need proof see Detroit. UNNECESSARY Regulations kill jobs and there are scores of them. If it isnt a regulation that promotes safety for the worker or customer/population then it shouldnt be on the books. Those unnecessary regulations are what has caused our Federal Government bureaucracy to swell to the bloated pig it is today. The federal government should never be the largest employer in the nation. They are inefficient and cost the taxpayer more than if you let the private sector do it. Now onto taxes, your dollar is taxed so many times its absurd, it should be the goal of a free society to pay as little in taxes as you can, you pay payroll tax, ssi tax, income tax, gasoline tax, retail tax and on and on all on the same dollar. That should piss anyone off who isnt being a leech off the system. True conservatives are for as little government in your lives as possible and keeping as much of your money as possible. We are 35 trillion in debt and teetering on the precipice hyperinflation. The unchecked spending cant go on forever and if I had to bet youll see it come home to roost within 5 years, When it does I would not want to be in the United States because its going to get real ugly.
Jackson is obviously the worst justice of all time. I've heard different cases on different topics, she's clueless. Even Kagen and Sotomayor are much better than her logic wise. Thomas is the best Justice in this Supreme court.
Why can't they just ignore abortion like they ignore school shooting!
I'm pretty sure that shooting up a school is already illegal and that SCOTUS wholeheartedly agrees. 🤦
It effects men’s right I thought that was obvious
Democrats trying to get around the constitution. Again.
All the left judges were just talking over the Idaho representatives.
Get real. Understand the federal government is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY using funding to supersede state laws.
@@jacobholley6181rights of the baby take precedence over the regrets of the mother for opening her legs when she was drunk.
@@FilmFlam-8008 Rights of fetus doesn't take presidence over the right of the woman. Why can't you guys ignore abortion, like you do school shooting???
Lawyers, five of them who have never been pregnant, are trying to decide when a pregnant woman is dying _enough_ to qualify for a legal abortion. Bonkers.
The vast majority being brain washed into arguing for the very small minority of cases and claiming that as their base argument for the large majority getting abortions due to selfish reasons (inconvenience etc)
But all five were babies, which you want to kill.
@@FilmFlam-8008 Keep up. I bet you have no clue what EMTALA, the law being debated, does for pregnant women experiencing emergency medical crises. Or how Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which the likes of you opposed, saved the lives of thousands of actual, born-alive babies.
@@FilmFlam-8008That’s a false equivalency. You do know that ectopic pregnancy, ruptured uterus, preeclampsia, etc all exist. Just because they were born doesn’t negate the point that this is a slippery slope. Yes, it sucks that the fetus must be killed should a medical emergency occur but that’s for a doctor to decide.
@@Malik_Maverick Ectopic pregnancy is a red herring. It is always fatal to the fetus, 90% of the time within the first trimester. Surgical removal of the fetus and placenta is the only treatment that can prevent serious, life-threatening risk to the mother. Interestingly, previous abortions increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy.
My mother had such a pregnancy in Canada back when there was a blanket ban on abortion. The only problem she had in getting appropriate care before it was life-threatening is that multiple pregnancy tests (urine and blood) consistently came up negative. No doctor would have refused to intervene earlier had they known she had a baby in her left fallopian tube.
Ruptured uterus? It typically occurs in the third trimester or during a full term attempt at vaginal labor following previous C-sections, a history of PID, or structural uterine abnormalities/defects. Or uterine scarring from previous abortions. In other words, when removal of the fetus is necessary, but the death of the fetus is not.
In the first trimester, it's vanishingly rare and is associated with comorbidities that would likely cause future infertility regardless of whether an abortion is performed. Ironically, scarring from previous abortions is one of the associated comorbidities for first trimester uterine rupture. Just something to think about.
Preeclampsia is typically diagnosed at about 20 weeks or later, and mild cases can usually be managed with bed rest until the pregnancy is full term. In more severe cases, medications to reduce blood pressure and prevent convulsions may be given. In the most severe cases, steroids are given to mature the fetus's lungs and the baby is delivered at or before 36 weeks.
Preeclampsia is associated with first pregnancies, pregnancies following an earlier preeclamptic pregnancy, maternal age of 35 or older, obesity and assisted reproduction treatments such as IVF. There's going to be some overlap there--for instance, women over 35 are more likely to need IVF. So do women who are having fertility problems because of previous abortions.
My sister in law had preeclampsia with her first pregnancy (age 35). She went on bed rest and her son was born healthy but two weeks early. She and her husband wanted two, so she lost weight, got her BP under control, and when she was 37, they tried again. This time, it was worse. Not only did she get preeclampsia even worse this time, but the baby needed surgery in utero to correct a defect in her heart.
All of which would appear to be an argument for:
1) not waiting too long. It increases the risk of abortion-worthy complications
2) be healthy in general, and avoid avoidable comorbidities like obesity
3) C-sections should never be done for convenience because they can complicate future pregnancies
4) previous abortions also put you at risk of an abortion-worthy complication, so should not be done on a whim
Maybe the left needs to rethink things. Give women proper information and proper advice. Don''t do shit you might regret later, whether that's getting knocked up, electively aborting for convenience, or waiting too long before you even try.
The argument that EMTALA doesn't cover illegal procedures is spurious when the sole purpose of banning the procedure is to create a situation where certain people suffer.
As if just living in Idaho wasn't bad enough.
Texas fighting EMTALA as well. Women with wanted pregnancies that go wrong go into sepsis, lose their fertility, etc etc.
Everyone has the right to deny medical treatment, no one has the right to deny medical treatment for other's! Period!
@@rickybobby7276
What if you don't want the baby anymore?
@@rickybobby7276letting the pregnant person having a medical emergency die, thus the fetus also dying, is preferred? You want 2 deaths instead of 1 and the potential of future babies?
@@rickybobby7276 hope this doesn’t affect any woman or girl in your life. The cases presented were women that wanted their babies, now they can no longer have children and the almost died. Is that something you would want for a loved one in your own life?
@@rickybobby7276 are you this passionate about children getting shot in schools or about republicans wanting to cut CHIP, welfare program for children or Medicaid which covers disabled children or children in lower income families?
Really? Everyone has the right to deny medical treatment?
You do realize that certain medical treatments were mandated not that long ago?
Incidentally, these medical treatments posed significant risks, and even killed people.
I beg to differ with justice Alito that Idaho and the other states that have restricted abortion rights care about either the mother or fetus. If the states did care they would be providing care for at risk fetuses and by extension the mother. I fully believe that in most of these tragic cases the mother wants the baby to go to term. If the states cared for either the mother or the fetus they would be offering intensive care treatment for them but they just send the mother and fetus away to wait for the situation to become more dire which doesn’t treat either mother or fetus. I think we all know that the hospital, state, lawyer and insurance company know treatment would be very expensive and result in a very sad miscarriage. Nobody in the above list wants to pay those huge costs.
Or that there’s nothing else they could do and may lead to criminal charges or lawsuits if misdiagnosed lead to the death of the baby. Same reason why they stopped the IVF procedures in Alabama
@@jacobholley6181 your ignorance is astounding!
The alive woman citizen is in every single case the primary and uttermost holder of ALL rights to life. There can be no doubting that any decision no matter how small or perceived fault that saves the alive citizen's life is just. The medical team in a decision here is considered totally and completely infallible. They can never be questioned or otherwise legally doubted or sued in a feint of harm to an mass of cells unfit for life. Just like the woman seeking the abortion cannot be prosecuted so should any Emergency Room Doctor and supporting Hospital be sued or prosecuted for providing Emergency care despite the existence of a fetus at any stage of gestation.
I hope you have that same energy my mother is on the news for first degree homicide of her infant..
@@surpriseimblack Your point being?
@@surpriseimblackbut you survived…. Somehow.
You're a "mass of cells."
@@jamapx Ohh you hurt my feeling. You are just a mass of cells too then. ☺☺
The Solicitor General is a rockstar!
"Abortion is between a woman and her doctor. Period." H. Ross Perot on Larry King Live 1992
Its murder.
Not when a third human being is involved.
@@rectorkirk1158so standing idly by when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy - which always results in the miscarriage of the fetus and an excruciating painful death of the mother - is perfectly ok with you.
@@rickybobby7276let’s hope people come to there senses and and overturn the ruling that stuck down roe v Wade 🙏🏽
0:22:00 "Answer the question please...."
"Based on- "
"Let me give you another one...."
Some of these pro-abort justices are insufferable.
I’m pro choice through and through AND I agree, for this to be fair, both sides need to be able to speak. 🗣️
Well, if you like legislators making your medical decisions, you are pro government.
@@jacobwatson1818 I think government should stay out of medical health decisions. The government imposing your will on women’s healthcare is a pro government stance.
It’s funny that justice Thomas says that the Idaho lawyer was provided some cases and asked to make a snap judgement, but this is what doctors are being asked to do in real time in Idaho and these other red states. Make snap decisions and take into consideration risking mother’s life or possibly going to jail. How can anyone practice medicine this way?
For the vast majority of abortions, this is not the case, also why ask a justice about things a doctor is supposed to know? They chose their career path and are expected to obtain the knowledge and ability to do so.
It was so very clear they were searching for a way to support Idaho's law and buying Idaho's fiction of "no daylight"
@@Cocomelxne it’s hard enough to make life and death decisions. I worked in labor and delivery, you have no idea how many ectopic pregnancies happen or water breaking at less than 18 weeks, and a host of other emergencies for which abortion is necessary. Hope nothing like this happens to any woman or girl, in your life. Now doctors have to fear prison to make decisions that are already difficulty enough. No one in medicine signed up for this.
@@Cocomelxne lawyers and politicians making medical decisions, with zero medical education.
@@mariaespiritu9512 what’s the percentage of those? And how many abortions were actually necessary? And I don’t mean the doctor thinks it was. When all other options were exhausted and abortion was all that’s left, how many?
Are you in favour of abortion with the exception for those very small percentage cases?
Idaho and the majority are wholly disingenuous. Clearly, even with the "good faith" provision, the law is chilling. This is already known from many actual incidents across the country.
1:08:00 how is there no president of Mental health as a qualifying condition?
The Idaho lawyer said the psych board outlined abortion explicitly that abortion can be the standard of care in certain situations . 🤷🏻♂️
There is a difference between precedence within the courts and the position of the psych board.
@@FactsOverFear thank you, I didn’t catch that distinction in the argument.
But not the standard for stabilizing a person in a medical emergency as is required under EMTALA.
Katanji Brown-Jackson should be a magistrate in some backwater traffic court.
Are you worried about your health?
Is your doctor telling you there's a high chance of injury? or possibly death in the near future?
Then ask your state legislator what medical treatment is right for you.
Well said, absolutely insane.
No condition exists where your health is not in immediate jeopardy where that wouldn’t occur. Nice strawman.
@@FilmFlam-8008 can you unpack that? I am not picking up what you’re putting down.
@@FilmFlam-8008 I would like to see an example of the state legislature criminalizing life saving medical procedures by requiring inaction.
Procedures the A.M.A. advocate for, and without which, needlessly endanger the life, health, and wellbeing.
Lawmakers generally pass legislation meant to protect patients from harm, not put patients in harms way intentionally.
@rebchizelbeak5392 it's like you immediately came to the comments without listening to the actual vid. JFC
I can't wait to hear the presidential immunity case. It should be fun.
Idaho Lawyer more intelligent than judge jackson...by far.
How so?
When the Idaho lawyer was asked what would happen if one doctor decided that the abortion was necessary but another doctor later said different, the lawyer admitted that a prosecutor could make the decision to file charges against the doctor. You better hope nothing happens to any woman you care about in a state with these laws. How can a doctor make sound decisions if he’s worried he’d be sent to prison for making that decision?
So you do know that is a DC lawyer arguing on behalf of the Idaho AG’s office? No Idaho lawyers are actually arguing this case.
No, there is no federal right to abortion in the Constitution, nor in any law passed by Congress. If you want there to be, you're going to have to pass a law THAT ACTUALLY MENTIONS ABORTION.
There is a federal right to abortion under law, and the when this court rules that be sure to cry extra loud.
There is also no federal law saying you’re allowed to enforce your religious doctrine on every American either.
Actually it explicitly says you CANT do that.
@@dragonflarefrog1424 really? What law would that be?
@@ASDFUIL The law in controversy here. Glad to help.
@@dragonflarefrog1424 Where does the law mention abortion?
The complication is that there are two people involved in abortion, not one. The rights of both people must be considered. We know that in some sense Rights are gained by sentience. So as we age and develop, we gain Rights. Children may be spanked, teens can drive, adults can vote, at certain ages people can run for office. The question is, "at what stage of sentience do people gain the Right to Life?"
Kagan is by far the most competent of the liberal justices on the court. It's so striking when you hear her in contrast to Jackson.
Kagan was apparently suggested to the Obama administration by Justice Scalia as someone smart :)
@ascensionblade Interesting. Apparently they became friends before he died ( even going hunting or shooting together). That's one of the things I like about her, she's willing to engage across the aisle.
Jackson's conception of federal power is frighteningly broad. I'm 100% pro-choice but even in this case she says crazy stuff.
They're talking about women as, "statutes!" Wow! Unbelievable!!! So the doctors don't know their jobs???
Leaving statutes not statues.. 🤦🏾♂️
What are you talking about? You don't make sense. Yes, in court, people are talked about regarding laws and provisions. Other than that, IDK what you're trying to get at here.
The doctors know their jobs just fine. They also know the laws too. That is why they are airlifting all the pregnant women to other states instead of treating them in their own hospitals. That is the case at hand here. Try to keep up.
Bottom line is that IF a person is in the hospital with a life threatening problem and they are pregnant and the only way to ensure that the person lives that the pregnancy is terminated that IS a reasonable solution!
But if the person went to the hospital with NO medical emergency other than being pregnant is NOT a good reason for the procedure!
The fact that the baby( fetus) IS a living creature in every respect, IT has the right to be considered to have IT'S life be just as important as the person who is pregnant, EVERY single attempt to save the baby(fetus)IS required
I don't hear anything about that in this argument!
Your comment has nothing to do with this case. This case is ONLY about emergent medical care where the woman is at risk for serious health complications or death.
Why are you talking about elective abortions? This case isn't about those. At all. Try to keep up.
If you read my comment , the first sentence said if a woman was in the hospital with a LIFE THREATENING problem , and is pregnant that would be the acceptable to do an abortion !
Nothing to do with elective !
Jackson making herself look stupid in the first 10 mins, new record?
that's Sotomayor 😂
Jackson is the one that sounds "like" AOC also she stretches her a's like "thaaat"
If you played a drinking game where you took a sip every time she started out: "Help me understand, I'm not understanding this...." you'd be drunk inside of 20 minutes.
She doesn't care about the law. She cares about her political agenda. She is a disgrace.
@@GraceUndrFyrShe’s smarter then you’ll ever be.
Use all your big words that a person that doesn't have the books you read you can't make it more understandable to the average person.
Why? They're talking to other highly educated individuals, not the public. We just get to listen in...
Sorry that you aren't a lawyer or a judge. Neither am I. But it is not a out whether WE can understand all the words. We are only listening in on communication between highly skilled people in their profession. It isn't about us at all.
The State position is evil.
Is it evil for a woman to desire and request abortions at least sometimes?
Alito is also evil.
He's a Patriot
Because life is important evil is murder of the the innocent.
"Evil"? Please define "evil." You mean you disagree?
@@lindaknorr9643 Stop eating meat.
@@Lychee-Nut nope
Sotomayor asks questions but doesn't want an answer. Typical Democrat - just makes speeches about how bad everyone is.
She does want answer, but his answers were bad. Typical Republican - Angry that bad answers aren’t accepted.
You think you control women .. wait till the election you’ll find out .
No not true. She gets the line of reasoning. Orals are not meant for complete sentences
You missed Alito and Gorsuch doing the same thing. Why is that? BTW, oral arguments don't always require full sentences. As soon as the justice heard the reasoning, that's all they needed to know. Go cry about that.
It's time to vote ladies.
Since women had the right to vote the country has been in decline. You are promoting that women vote for abortion because you are irresponsible and avoid accountability.
So literally we have national healthcare with respect to the power the federal government wields on what hospitals and doctors can’t do by way of funding Medicare or not depending on the rules they set forth by decree of the king in charge at the time.
So abortion is said to be up to the states but clearly the feds can and do decide through the money chain. How many hospitals would there be if none of them accepted Medicare patients.
That’s oversimplifying sprinkled with circular logic ending in a complete and total misinterpretation of the law. Good job!
I'm terms of national health care, yes, the federal government has told hospitals what to do in ERs since 1986. They must stabilize a patient before transferring them to another hospital. Why do you think this case should be any different? You didn't have a problem about this until now. Why is that?
Counselor was continually cut off by the left leaning justices. Ridiculous
If you count Barrett and Kavanaugh as "left leaning justices" 🤨
It not like a right leaning judges who have already kill woman with their rulings
That’s how appeals work. The general was cut off by crazy Republicans justices. Is that ridiculous to you too?
@@danoberste8146 Barrett and Kay let him speak. The Libs continually cut him off before he could finish the first sentence of his reply. One of the Justices (I’m guessing Roberts) even pointed it out later on.
These libs are acting like it’s a hearing and they got their 5 minutes to preach. That’s shameful
@@dragonflarefrog1424 They might have been cut short but every time at least got to finish their sentences. The libs constantly asked a question then immediately cut the counselor off before he could finish a sentence. It’s a question and answer session, not a chance for the Justices just to preach their views
僧
You have an abortion you go to jail for life. If you can't control your sex and you wake up one morning and say I'm pregnant I don't want it. What are you going to do?
What does that have to do with this case? This case is about medical emergencies. Not about elective abortions.
Actually, in many of these cases, the pregnancies are wanted. But an ectopic pregnancy is not going to work out. Either is a pregnancy with PPROM.
In all the scenarios with this case, it doesn't matter how the woman got pregnant or if she wants it or not. Medical emergencies are medical emergencies. Period.
Idaho has an abortion exception just for risk of death. But in emergencies, hospitals get federal funding for stabilizing patients instead of dumping them to other hospitals.
The statute that gives hospitals the funding says that hospitals must treat the patient to avoid risk of HEALTH and not just death. And in some cases, abortion is the only medical treatment to stabilize a patient. Like one who has an ectopic pregnancy that has ruptured.
Idaho won't treat these women with abortion care. Even if it is the ONLY care within standard guidelines. Hospitals are airlifting them to other states.
That they are airlifting them instead of sending them by ambulance tells you that they know these patients are at risk for serious health complications or death.
The Biden Administration is trying to get Idaho to stop dumping the patients. Idaho doesn't want to stop and it still wants to receive federal money for its hospitals. Even though they are not following the federal guidelines.
Now can you understand what the case is about?
Wtf thsts pwin medication not complicationd from lack of care
😮😢
The fetus is not viable or dead. The woman's body might abort that fetus. But sometimes her body does not. Idaho wants her in sepsis and near death before she can get medical care.
Can men get a financial abortion to the fetus then?
@@hollowhammer3526 It's simple. Don't put your schlong into places you don't want to be responsible for. Or wear a sleeve. Besides, men seem quite able to find all sorts of ways to not take responsibility - financial or otherwise.
Sotomayer is unbelievable.
Cry more.
Nothing about the babys right to life. No wonder marriage is at all time lows.
All the cases mentioned in this hearing was about women who WANTED to have a baby. Did you really watch it?
But look on the briefer side… your position on letting women die to save a non-viable fetus that will also die will rase widowers to an all time high.
That’s what you’re going for, right?
They actually talked about it 3 separate times with different judges. Perhaps you were doing something else and listening for those specific words. Different words were used, but that was the topic. You, clearly, did not really listen to the case.
Voting DEMOCRAT up and down the ticket, solely on this issue.
Which is why voting whould be limited to folks with intelligence.
Kagan and Sotomayor always want to argue and will not let the lawyer(s) respond.
Alito and Gorsuch interrupted the SG plenty of times too. Did you notice that? Oh you didn't. Quelle suprise.
It seems to me the liberal judges ask a lot of questions they don’t actually want answers too. Very much like our house and senate when both sides simply make speeches. I don’t hear the conservative judges cutting off the responses numerous times . Hard to glean any clear idea of the respondents remarks when they are interrupted so much.
I'm pro choice and I had the same reaction. I want to understand. I thoight there were some good questions but what do you learn without answers? I appreciated the one judge who said "Let him anwer!" And the other judge who said "I'd like to hear your answer to that question." I also detest when someone demands a "yes or no" to a question that has an answer needing explanation. "Are you still beating your wife, yes or no?!" What does a person who never beat their wife answer?
37:40 - "It may be too humble for women's health...." waits for laugh/applause.... "OK, thank you."
No one is impressed, lady.
Does UA-cam require an abortion tag??? lol. That’s funny.
with TRUTH SOCIAL it's so easy to say that.. FREE SPEECH 🔥🔥😎.
GOD IS TRUTH
@@milicadjukich4416 God is imaginary.
Do you love Filipino Truth Social bots? Vote republican 2025!
@@LauraPfeiff TRUTH SOCIAL is Hardline Revolution !!🔥🔥 I Love It.
@@jehovahsthickness6242 TRUTH SOCIAL is Hardline Revolution !!🔥🔥 I Love It.
😇💙💙💙🙏🇺🇲🌏
I'm not going to lie this lawyer sounds reasonable and the Supreme Court sounds ridiculous taking over him and not allowing to answer because they know his answer will deflate their accusation.
Which lawyer? SCOTUS is accusing who of what? Which Justice sre you referring to? Be specific rather than use overly broad derp accusatory language that says effing nothing.
I don't mind bots. I mind ignorant people trying to join the intellectual fray with just their ignorance.😊
@christianhorlikc5441 so you're a bot? This video doesn't say the name of the person representing the state of Idaho so you're request is in reasonable and if you listen you'd know what I was taking about so I don't mind questions and requests for specifics but I'm not doing research for your questions that don't even matter to the point of you just listen.
@@huzzindaable Let's make it easier for you. Is it the first lawyer or the second lawyer?
You wrote something exceptionally vague while simultaneously criticizing SCOTUS. Then you couldn't even bother taking an actual position.
That's what makes you grotesquely ignorant. You judged all of SCOTUS w/o representing one side or the other. FYI, Justices generally stop lawyers from talking when they either establish a position or fail at establishing a position.
You're self-important enough to criticize SCOTUS but you're just too slow to follow what's going on.
@christianhorlikc5441 If you can't tell who the lawyer for Idaho is, maybe just stop trying.
@huzzindaable You still don't get it. Lawyers for either side are routinely "interrupted" by any of the Justices when they can't answer the Justice's question logically OR they have already addressed the question and are still speaking pointlesslly.
What you wrote originally can easily be applied to the government's lawyer. Your derp opinion literally can be applied to every lawyer who has ever argued in front of SCOTUS.
JFC.
Again, I don't mind that you didn't know any better. That ignorance is no longer an excuse. And you going to that ignorance obstinately trying to discredit something.
When you wonder why certain people condescend to you, it's cuz you're purposefully derp to promote a political hack point.
Congrats.
gravity abortion when you throw yourself down stairs.........
No man, that's how Chinese parents name bebbes, 'cept it's silverware they throw. :D
If you’re poor,but you hate poor people? Vote republican 2025!
Where did you get your info. Re: Republicans?
And if you're middle class and want to be poor vote Democrat 2024.
@@brendahogan5779 it’s what we vote for.
We’re American first, Unless…
It’s welfare.
Criminalizing homelessness.
Wic.
Social security.
Medicare.
We hate unions and love at will employment even though it takes all of the power away from the workers.
We hate regulations even though they protect our communities and the middle/lower class wage workers.
Any time the middle class gets something from their taxes we call it socialism yet we run to bailout billion dollar corporations with the very same tax dollars without batting an eye.
In other words, both parties want to capitalize the gains and socialize the losses, but republicans take it to a completely different level in terms of screwing us over lately.
Ha ha ha ha. I guess others didn't get your humor, but I did!
@@jehovahsthickness6242 Boy so much wrong with what you posted so lets start from the top, I have no problem with helping those out who need it when they hit a bad spell in life but I am entirely against welfare as your occupation.
If you can walk and talk then you can work. Social security is fine as is medicare other than the fact that we allow to many people to use these programs who dont need to and they have overloaded the system bankrupting them. Entitlement programs make up the lion share of federal spending followed by defense and now the interest on our debt.
Our forefathers never intended for the federal government to be your caretaker, to them that would have been the opposite of freedom.
Unions kill jobs period, need proof see Detroit. UNNECESSARY Regulations kill jobs and there are scores of them. If it isnt a regulation that promotes safety for the worker or customer/population then it shouldnt be on the books. Those unnecessary regulations are what has caused our Federal Government bureaucracy to swell to the bloated pig it is today.
The federal government should never be the largest employer in the nation. They are inefficient and cost the taxpayer more than if you let the private sector do it.
Now onto taxes, your dollar is taxed so many times its absurd, it should be the goal of a free society to pay as little in taxes as you can, you pay payroll tax, ssi tax, income tax, gasoline tax, retail tax and on and on all on the same dollar. That should piss anyone off who isnt being a leech off the system.
True conservatives are for as little government in your lives as possible and keeping as much of your money as possible. We are 35 trillion in debt and teetering on the precipice hyperinflation. The unchecked spending cant go on forever and if I had to bet youll see it come home to roost within 5 years, When it does I would not want to be in the United States because its going to get real ugly.
If you can’t pay then you shouldn’t get treated! Vote republican 2025!
You are trolling
@@techsavvy2887 I don’t talk to deep state Rinos!
Do you really not know when the national election is? It is November 2024.
@@thomassenbart when is the transfer of power?
@@jehovahsthickness6242 Jan 1 is the transfer of power but you said vote/election 2025. Do you understand the difference? There is no vote in 2025.
Alito and Thomas are the worst, they need to leave the SCOTUS. I love justices Jackson and Sotomayor!
Sit down, fanboy.
Jackson is obviously the worst justice of all time. I've heard different cases on different topics, she's clueless. Even Kagen and Sotomayor are much better than her logic wise. Thomas is the best Justice in this Supreme court.