Skip to main content

This story just drips with a key example of rightwing hypocrisy: "States' rights to decide things for themselves are vital only when states want to do what we like." The sheer gall it takes to argue both sides of that position -- sometimes simultaneously even on the same issue -- is constantly amazing to me. #USPolitics

CNN: Reagan-era emergency health care law is the next abortion flashpoint at the Supreme Court

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/20/politics/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-emergency-care/index.html

#uspolitics
in reply to Craig Froehle

volkris
volkris
• •

what specifically do you have in mind?

Sounds like opposing this federal rule would be consistent with states’ rights arguments.

in reply to volkris

Craig Froehle
Craig Froehle
• •
@volkris They (the rightwing extremists here) are simultaneously advocating that states should have the rights to outlaw abortions, but not to protect abortions AND that federal law (i.e., EMTALA) should protect the lives of unborn children, but not require EDs to provide abortions when pregnant women's lives are in danger. The "states' rights" claim is a sham...they just want to enshrine their religious ideology into whatever law they can.
@volkris
in reply to Craig Froehle

volkris
volkris
• •

can you point to a right winger promoting EMTALA forcing protection of unborn children?

I haven’t heard rightwingers pushing that, so I wonder if maybe you misunderstand, or even if THEY misunderstand.

in reply to Craig Froehle

volkris
volkris
• •

if you’re talking about the reference to the CLI brief, firstly I wouldn’t say that’s a mainstream expression as it was submitted as a technical analysis on behalf of a legal institution, and secondly, the brief was absolutely couched in terms of the state’s position.

So it wasn’t against states’ rights but emphasizing them.

⇧