The US Supreme Court is poised to allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho, according to a copy of the opinion that was briefly posted on the court’s website. Bloomberg Law obtained a copy of the opinion, which would reinstate a lower court order that had ensured hospitals in the state could perform emergency abortions to protect the health of the mother. Bloomberg Law Host June Grasso and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel explain the decision to Bloomberg's Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu.
This is breaking new loose from Bloomberg.
Here in Washington, we are all focused on the news that Bloomberg just exclusively broke the Supreme Court inadvertently today, posting a copy of an opinion on its website that would suggest the Court is poised to allow emergency abortions in the state of Idaho. Joe, this is a big deal, not final yet as this is not a formal issuing of an opinion, but still suggests that the Court in this case may be delivering a win for abortion rights.
That's right, and for Joe Biden the day before the first presidential debate. The timing here is remarkable, Kaylee. We're in the midst of a three day tour here. When it comes to opinions, we did expect and still do to get more tomorrow, but we thought the Court was done for the day. We got to this morning and this dropped a short time ago. Thanks to our team at Bloomberg News and at Bloomberg Law bringing this to us. Now, the question remains, once again, will the Court do anything formal? We want to turn to June Grosso from Bloomberg Law, the host of Bloomberg Law here on Bloomberg radio and TV and June, it's great to see you here. I suspect you didn't think we'd be talking about this either after this morning's opinions were released. This is going to lead to a whole investigation. We have no idea how this was posted right right.
You know, it could have just been some administrative assistant by mistake posted it and then took it back. I mean, I'm sure there'll be an investigation into this, and hopefully you'll get more information than you did on the political leak of the Dobbs decision. But if you know what we see is true, it's a huge decision and it means and it also affects other states like Texas that have similar laws. I mean, this case was so important that the trial judge had issued a ruling putting this law on hold and saying that, you know, the emergency procedures could go forward, and the Supreme Court said no, they they put a stop to that, and then they just ought to take the case without it going to an appellate court. So that's how important this is. And you know, it could show whether or not the federal law is going to take the place or supersede the state law, which is what the Biden administration argued in this case. They said, if you're taking, as Kelly said, you're taking Medicare funds, you have to follow the Atala law, and that provides for emergency room procedures of abortion if a woman's life is seriously at risk. And during the oral arguments, Justice Kagan was really sort of you know, I want to say, she was emphatic about saying that, you know, you don't have to wait until the woman's life is in jeopardy, is in threat, in order to have this procedure. And it was very the oral argument, you couldn't tell which way the court was going to go. I mean, you knew that the three liberals were going one way and the three very conservatives were going the other way. But then the three in the middle, Justice Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Amy Tony Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, where were they? They were all over the place.
Well, of course, we'll await finding out for sure who the drafter of the final opinion is. But in what was briefly posted online, they indicated that the majority is going to dismiss this case as improvidently granted, which probably relates to what you were just speaking to June whether the Court should have taken this up in the first place. But this is a kind of a pattern I've noticed to merge with recent opinions where the court doesn't seem to necessarily be deciding the merits of the case, but rather standing, as was the case in the social media Biden administration relationship ruling they made earlier this morning, and in the other abortion related case, access to mif A Pristone, which they did rule in favor of, they did so on the grounds of standing. It doesn't seem that they're necessarily deciding the merits around these abortion rates.
You're right, throwing this at is improvidently granted. Is another way to dispose of it, and it's because they're trying to get you know, they're trying to get five vote in order to decide the case. And in a lot of these cases, the easiest way is to say there was no standing. Now, the MYFI pristone case, that really there was no standing there. Everyone who saw that initially said why why do these doctors have the right to sue? And it's still going to go. States are still trying to sue over that. So in the mif of pristone case that was definitely no standing. But in the you know, in the case today they found no standing and that you know, they could have gone either way, so it's an easier way for them to deal with it. But what happens is the lower courts don't get guidance and we don't get information as far as the public to know where they stand on these issues. You know, how far can the Biden administration go in correcting misinformation online? Now? We don't know that because the decision is off on a procedural ground. And I had a professor I talked to recently say that, you know, lawyers can find a procedural reason for anything which is true. I can find a procedural reason if you're looking for it, and they're lo it seems.
Yeah, all right. Jane Grosso, host of Bloomberg Law, thank you so much for your instant analysis on this breaking news story exclusive to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court poised to allow emergency abortions in Idaho. We want to get more reaction now with a special guest, I'm pleased to say who is joining us here in our Washington, d C studio. Dana Nessel the Attorney General of the state of Michigan is now joining us. Welcome to Balance the Power. Thank you so much for being here. While you're here in Washington, could I just ask you first about your reaction to the news Bloomberg has broken today, this opinion that seems inadvertently to have been posted on the website, but as a court ruling in favor of abortion rates, it seems are poised to.
At least well, you know, fortunately in Michigan, in the wake of Dobbs. You know, we had very restrictive laws that were on the books that were unenforceable, but in twenty twenty two, we passed the Reproductive Freedom for All Ballots, which you know, enshrined reproductive freedoms into our state constitution. So we haven't been worried about this particular situation in my state. But I've met with women in states with very restrictive bands all over the country, and I can tell you that women of reproductive age and the people who love them all around the United States are probably collectively signing some you know, a breath of relief right now because of how incredibly scary it is to think that you could be in this situation where you need emergency medical care, you're facing the loss of an organ, your fertility is at stake, and you know you're literally looking at potentially dying and having physicians have to, you know, violate their hippocratic growth and say I can't treat you because I'm afraid of going to jail for it. So I think for women all across America, this is a victory. If that is in fact an accurate meant what was on the website. It does give me some pause that now this is the second time in a few years that we're seeing something accidentally posted or distributed, and it makes me wonder what's going on at the United States Supreme Court right now. But you know, we've seen this exponential rise in both maternal mortality as well as infant mortality ever since the Dab's decision came out, and hopefully, if this is a real ruling from the court, it will do something to curtail the number of deaths we've seen.
So are you encouraged then to see what is apparently forthcoming from the court. And I wonder if you think they should just come out with it today following the ruling on mifipristoe maintaining access to the abortion pill, or you discourage that both, to Kaylee's point, earlier have been essentially rulings on standing.
Yeah. I have a theory about that. Yeah. I think that these are not cases that the High Court wanted to hear. I think they were sort of forced upon them by incredibly conservative circuit courts of appeal that really have forced the hand now of the United States Supreme Court. And I've seen decision after decision where I don't think that the justices wanted to rule on this particular case at this particular time. I don't think that the majority of justices by that, I mean six of them on the Supreme Court have an interest in restricting Second Amendment related rights. They don't like in general the gun safety laws. They don't like the use of mifipristom. But these are poor vehicles that have come to them to allow them to further restrict abortion rights or gun safety measures or things of that nature. So what we're seeing is they are finding other ways to dispose of these cases without having a rule on the merits, and that allows them the freedom in the future to say, well, we're not contradicting a prime decision. We're not overturning any sort of precedent. We got rid of that case on standing, and that's what they're continuing to do.
But should the Court not have expected these kind of challenges to ultimately reach them after they ruled and Dabbs to essentially overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. It was only inevitable that certain state laws or access to certain procedures or medications we're going to have to be called into question just because of the uncertainty that ruling created.
Now, you would think so, and you would think that that would be their thought as well. But I think some of these cases are just so controversial and so anathetical to public opinion. And you already have the Supreme Court in a place where, you know, we've never had such low confidence or respect for this court, and they've been mired in ethical scandals, and every time they issue a ruling that is deeply unpopular with the public, they risk having their integrity impugned more and more. And so I think that might be part of the calculus with some of these rulings as well. And again, because these are cases that are being you know, essentially tossed on standing or improvidently granted or something of that nature. It does still leave room for future rulings where they can still continue to chip away at reproductive rights or the rights of people to have, you know, gun safety laws or other things that are frankly very popular in America.
Is breaking new when he was from Bloomberg