this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
72 points (97.4% liked)

News

36909 readers
2609 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago (1 children)

These assholes sure are proving how "pro-life" they are what with denying women abortions when not doing it will kill the fetus anyway. And the woman. I realize that the woman is just surplus trash, but why do they care if the fetus is going to die regardless?

Oh right, God's will.

[–] cmoney@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

The supreme cunts are hoping women of color who don't have access to decent health care die.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Erin Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said those financial penalties are “quite severe for both doctors and hospitals.”

Erin continued with "If it was up to us, we would be throwing all of them into prison."

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Erin Hawley, Senator’s wife

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

"they think the Supreme Court is illegitimate partisan hacks."
"So? put more wood on that fire."

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

toss...dumpster

Ah, so he boofed it.

[–] ignirtoq@fedia.io 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Republicans in Idaho asked the Supreme Court to decide whether state bans or federal law take precedence.

This is absurd. Federal law always takes precedence, even if it's a section of a state constitution versus a law passed by Congress. Period. It's the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, and it's quite clear. The supremacy clause doesn't cover executive order, but this case is about EMTALA, a law passed by Congress.

Now if they want to argue the Biden administration's enforcement of that law is going beyond the bounds set by the law, that would be something SCOTUS would need to decide. But as far as I can tell they aren't arguing that. They're saying if the Court lets the Biden administration require emergency abortions in opposition to state law, then that will let them require elective abortions as well, which is an even more absurd claim since the scope of EMTALA is strictly for medical care when the health or life of the patient is at risk without it.

[–] TwentySeven@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is absurd. Federal law always takes precedence, even if it's a section of a state constitution versus a law passed by Congress. Period.

I'm on the pro-choice side, I don't think it's fair to make that statement without mentioning the 10th amendment.

[–] ignirtoq@fedia.io 1 points 2 years ago

The 10th amendment doesn't change the supremacy clause. It simply makes explicit what's implicit in the supremacy clause: federal law takes precedence over any and all state laws and constitutions when they are made in pursuance of the US Constitution, so the 10th amendment clarifies that if it's not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, then it's reserved for the states. To invoke the 10th amendment in this case you would have to prove the federal government is acting beyond its constitutional scope, which would require either proving it's going beyond EMTALA or that EMTALA itself is unconstitutional. They are not making either claim in this case.