LogFAQs > #980079337

Kradek posted...

The person I was hearing about this from was saying it sounded like she was echoing Sotomayor's questioning and commented that it may be because she's a woman and as such they obviously see abortion/bodily autonomy rights, as well as the healthcare associated with it, very differently than men who think women should just be breeding sows and cooks.

She jumped in after a question from Sotomayor to Idaho and said Im kind of shockedyour own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered, and youre now saying theyre not?Well, youre hedgingJustice Sotomayor is asking you would this be covered or not, and it was my understanding that the legislators witnesses said that these would be coveredSome doctors might reach a contrary conclusionis what Justice Sotomayor is asking youWhat if a prosecutor thought differentlythat no good faith doctor could draw that conclusionwould that doctor be prosecuted?

Later she said But why are you here? In response to Idahos argument that the federal law and Idahos law basically were not contradictory. Well, hold on a secondyoure here because there is an injunctionand if your law can fully operate because EMTALA doesnt curb Idahos authority to enforce its law

It really was hard to follow Idahos legal argument here. It seemed to be far reaching to the point that they want to invalidate EMTALA, but then it somehow became Idahos law is compliant with EMTALA.

Its not a surprise, but she also asked if Idaho has conscience exemptions for doctors who would not want to perform abortions, etc.